Please Feel Free to use this for yourself no copy rights. Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act Protects you in terms of Jurisdiction. The Magistrate court have no Jurisdiction on the above mater as the State should Justify the Law. Gone with Apartheid |Laws Gone…
Statement by Dieter Walbrugh in relation to charges of Possession of Dagga
17 October 2013.
1. I, Dieter Walbrugh, charged with possession of Dagga hereby makes the following declaration at the Goodwood Magistrate’s Court, where I am required to appear on the above charges:
2. I bring to the notice of the Honourable Magistrate of the Goodwood Magistrate’s Court, that the issue of the prohibition of Dagga is in question as a result of legal precedents established in the North Gauteng High Court when an order was granted on the 19th July 2011, and on the 3rd May 2013 in the Cape Town High Court, and on the 3rd September 2013, in the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town to allow citizens to:
“stay the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court in Goodwood Magistrate’s Court, in order to approach the Constitutional Court by way of a High Court application or action against the respondents, and other respondents, within 60 days of the order being granted in this application, to have certain parts of the Illicit Drugs and Trafficking Act, (Act 140 of 1992), and certain parts of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, (Act No 101 of 1965), in so far as these Acts deal with the uses and possession of, and dealing in dagga, declared to be in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of South Africa, and therefore to be unconstitutional.”
3. I also claim that the law against Dagga and the persecution of members of the Dagga Culture of South Africa, of which I am a member, violates rights in the Bill of Rights, and is therefore unconstitutional.
4. I claim the right to submit further documentation to a High Court in substantiation of my claims.
5. I bring to the notice of this honorable Goodwood Magistrate’s Court that in the North Gauteng High Court, on 19 July 2011, the Honorable Justice Bertelsman granted Stobbs and Clarke their application to stay their prosecutions in the Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court for the possession of Dagga, and the right to present motivations in the High Court for a hearing in the Constitutional Court regarding the Constitutionality and justification of the prohibition of Dagga.
(Stobbs and Clarke vs. Minister of Justice and 2 others, Case 27601/2011) (www.daggacouple.co.za).
5. This Accused claims the precedent set and equal rights resulting from the granting of the order in the application by Stobbs and Clarke, Case 27601/2011 for the postponement of prosecution in the Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, to allow a summons of the State in the North Gauteng High Court regarding the Constitutionality and justification of the prohibition of Dagga.
6. I, the Charged, further bring to the notice of this honourable Magistrate’s Court to note that in the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, on 3rd May 2013, the honorable Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso and the honorable Justice Nape Dolamo granted Ras Garreth Anver Prince and two others, their application to stay their prosecution in the Khayelitsha Regional Court for the possession of Dagga and the right to present motivations in the High Court for a hearing in the Constitutional Court regarding the Constitutionality and justification of the prohibition of Dagga.
(Garreth Anver Prince and 2 others vs. Magistrate N.P. Venter N..O. and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions, Case Number 3298/13, WCHC ; and
Garreth Anver Prince and 2 others vs. Magistrate McKenna, N.O. and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions, Case Number 20996/12, WCHC).
7. I, the accused, claims the precedent set and equal rights resulting from the granting of the order in the applications by Ras Garreth Anver Prince, Case Number 3298/13, WCHC , and Case Number 20996/12, WCHC, for the postponement of prosecution in the Khayelitsha Regional Court, Cape Town, to allow a summons of the State in the Western Cape High Court regarding the Constitutionality and justification of the prohibition of Dagga.
8. I, the Accused, further bring to the notice of this honourable Goodwood Magistrate’s Court that in the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, on 3rd September 2013, the honorable Justice Le Grange granted Ras Menelek Barend Abraham Wentzel, his application to stay their prosecution in the Robertson and Ashton Magistrates’ Courts for the possession of Dagga and the right to present motivations in the High Court for a hearing in the Constitutional Court regarding the Constitutionality and justification of the prohibition of Dagga.
9. Notice is also here duly brought before the honourable Goodwood Magistrate’s Court of the Western Cape: in the light of the legal precedent of the orders granted to Jules Stobbs and Myrtle Clarke in North Gauteng (Case 27601/11North Gauteng High Court), and also granted to Ras Garreth Anver Prince in the Western Cape, (Case Khayelitsha Regional Court ), and to Ras Barend Abraham Wentzel in the Western Cape (Case 8658/13) that I lay a claim of equal rights before the law in terms of Section 9 of the Bill of rights of the Constitution, and claim my own rights to a fair hearing in a High Court and the Constitutional Court in defense of the charges against me, in which my defense will question the justification and Constitutionality of the prohibition of Dagga.
10 I, the charged, hold the belief that the illegality of Cannabis is unconstitutional and therefore invalid, and that, in the interest of human rights and Justice, there is good reason for the High Court and Constitutional Court to reconsider the facts about Dagga (Cannabis sativa) and to find that the prohibition of Cannabis must come to an end.
11. I the Accused, repspectfully inform the Goodwood Magistrate’s Court , that in view of the legal precedents mentioned, that the charges against the accused must be …read more