Hey Jackboot Johnny, I've still got my guns

Court Case 7th August 98 in Kingaroy

7 August 98

As far as I was concerned court went well today. Both the Magistrate and the prosecutor were most careful to give me a fair go today. I was in there for 3 hours.

I have applied to the court for a transcript of the case. This should be available in a week or two according to the Registrar. The case covered the affidavit, the reasons for adjournment, and the evidence.

The case was adjourned until 2 September for the magistrate to consider everything presented.

The prosecutor went through the affidavit point by point rebutting each point. Not really understanding my own affidavit was a definite liability however I kept repeating my mantra that I needed an adjournment because as a legal illiterate I needed to call in expert witnesses.

The reasons for adjournment at my request were also covered and all were rejected by the magistrate. I assume there is a appeal possible on these.

It was mentioned by the prosecutor that the realm had been repealed by the criminal code 1899 section 3

The Prosecutor called me to the witness box and had the AFFIDAVIT submitted as evidence and I was questioned on this. I didn't do very well, however later he said I needed this as my basis for appeal.

Well thats all I can recall at present. I will give full details when I get transcript.

In the court I said the following (pre-planned)

ENTER PLEA- NOT GUILTY

I have an application. I apply for an adjournment on the following grounds.

1)I have been denied Legal aid and therefore I am unable to obtain Legal representation and therefore any verdict that you reach is unsafe

2)I respectfully demand that I be accorded my right to trial by Jury. If convicted I will be liable to criminal penalty and possibly imprisonment and therefore am entitled at common law and expressly by virtue of entrenched Rights provided for in the ancient statutes of the realm to a trial by Jury

After the discussion of orders and affidavit there was an short adjournment allowed for me to decide on a reply. I said the following (impromptu)

I want an adjounment because I need to call expert witnesses to rebut the arguments of the prosecution as it should be obvious that I am not competant to fully unravel all the legal complexities of this issue of the gravest National importance touching as it does upon our most fundamental blood bought freedoms

In the court I said the following (pre-planned)

WHEN MAGISTRATE SAYS TO PROCEED

Most of the facts that constitute this offence are not disputed

I am a free citizen and subject of the British Crown (Hand in birth certificate)

I am subject to all validly enacted laws and I claim the Rights enshrined in Common Law

The Sovereign is bound by the BILL OF RIGHTS (1688), MAGNA CARTA (1297) and the BILL OF HABEUS CORPUS (1640)

The Current Queen has sworn to uphold and not derogate from the ENTRENCHED RIGHTS contained in the afore mentioned contracts.

The BILL OF RIGHTS upholds the Right of Free citizens to bear arms for self Defence suitable to their conditions AND as allowed by Law

The Queen through her Representative was in Breach of her coronation Oath when she assented to the weapons act in that she did not uphold the Rights of her subjects as enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS and MAGNA CARTA The Weapons act is therefore invalid and ultra vires.

No decision was made so I didn't yet get to say the following

IF MAGISTRATE DECIDES TO HAND DOWN DECISION

I would like to say that I am a conscientious objector to the gun laws. I believe it is an evil, destructive, reprehensible law which represents an attack on the liberty of the Australian people

To comply with this law would represent a betrayal by me of the principle of freedom to which I and many others subscribe. I believe that the compact between the sovereign and the free people of the realm has been broken and the full consequences and ramifications of this attack on our liberty will be felt for generations.

I am unable in good conscience to comply with the laws and inform the court that I have no intention of complying in future. My remaining guns will remain buried.

I include below what I can remember/ wrote down about the prosecutor rebuttal of the Affidavit etc. You will have to wait for full transcript to be sure of the full and correct details. What Prosecutor said is in CAPITALS

In the Magistrates court

held at Kingaroy on 7 day of August 1998.

The Queen ( in right of the State of Queensland) V Martin Essenberg, a subject of the Queen of Australia.

AFFIDAVIT

I, MARTIN ESSENBERG of Lot 7 Runnymede est Rd, Nanango in the State of Queensland, make oath and say as follows :

1.I am the DEPONENT and a citizen of the Queen in Right of the Commonwealth.

2. I challenge as "ultra vires" the right of the Parliament of the State of Queensland to pass laws to the prejudice of the Queen of Australia and my right to assist Her in the defence of the Realm.

P- NO LAWFUL GROUNDS

3. The State of Queensland has made an Act of Sedition contrary to Section 24 A Crimes Act 1914 by passing an Act contrary to federal Law.

P- NO PROOF

4. An Act made contrary to Federal Law is not an Act enforcible in any Court of Queensland.

P- ACT NOT MADE CONTRARY TO FEDERAL LAW

5. It is one thing to offer to purchase weapons from the population for the purposes of defending the Realm but is an Act of Treachery to do an Act of purchasing weapons for the destruction thereof which diminish and undermine the Capability of the Queen of Australia to carry out Her obligations under the Constitution to defend the States of Australia as She has taken upon Herself in Section 51 Placitum (VI) Constitution.

P- NO GROUNDS- GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS QUEENSLAND ACTION

ME- I pointed out that governments come and go but that neither the constitution nor entrenched laws supported this action and they were more important than Government

6. Every citizen has a duty to take up arms and present himself for military service in cases of emergency and any Act of Parliament made by a State of the Commonwealth which diminishes the capability of a citizen to do his or her public duty effectively and quickly is the Act of a traitor.

P- NO LAWFUL GROUNDS

7. The Act of the Queensland Parliament has successfully promoted feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of her majesty's subjects so as to endanger the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth by making a law that contravenes Section 24A (g) Crimes Act 1914.

P- NO PROOF OF SEDITIOUS INTENTION

ME- I said the intent may not have been so but the result was seditious

_________________________________________________________

Deponent
A Justice of the Peace.
8. Any person involved in an illegal attempt, or who has illegally passed a bill to give effect to a seditious intention has committed a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth and the parliament of the State of Queensland has attempted to undermine and destroy the rights of the Queen of Australia and as such, the members of Parliament who have attempted seition should be charged.

P- NO PROOF OF SEDITIOUS INTENTION

9. Lawlessness by a State Government and its servants, the Police Officers cannot be tolerated because the very fabric of society demands obedience to the law by everybody.

P- NO LAWFUL BASIS

10.I truly believe it is my right as a subject of the Queen and an Australian citizen to have a trial by jury for the charge of illegal possession of Firearms because:

(a)The MAGNA CARTA, CAP. XXIX says: "NO freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him (a, unless by the lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice."

P- NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE MAGNA CARTA PROVIDES NO STATUTORY BASIS IN THIS JURISDICTION. (Some mention of a legal case re prisoners and condoms brought up which I didn't understand)

(b)The CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM, CAP. II says: "AND we will, that if any Judgments be given from henceforth contrary to the Points of the Charters aforesaid by the Justices, or by any other Officers that hold the Plea before them against the Points of the Charters, they shall be undone, and holden for nought."

P- NO EFFECT BECAUSE PROVIDES NO STATUTORY BASIS IN THIS JURISDICTION

(c)The AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION (63 and 64 Vict.), Commonwealth of Australia (CH 12) Constitution Act s.80 says: "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, ...".

P- DOESN'T APPLY AS THIS OFFECNCE NOT AGAINST COMMONWEALTH. STATE STATUTE NOT INDITABLE. THIS CASE WAS A SIMPLE OFFENCE

(d)Clause 5 of the CONSTITUTION ACT says: "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and the people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State: ...".

P- NOT APPLICABLE

(e)Clause 3 of the CONSTITUTION ACT proclaimed "that ... the people of New South Wales, Victoria (etc) ... shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia."

P- NOT APPLICABLE

(f)The lack of a trial by jury would undermine our existing rights enshrined for seven centuries since Magna Carta.

P- NO STATUTORY BASIS

11. The MAGNA CARTA, CAP. I says: "We have granted also, (and given) to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for evermore, (all the) liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs, for evermore."

P- NO STATUTORY BASIS

12. Therefore, this, with the Australian Constitution and the 1988 referendum and the Confirmatio Cartarum, establishes the fact that trial by jury for illegal possession of firearms cannot be made obsolete.

P- INCORRECT

___________________________________________________________

Deponent
A Justice of the Peace

13. This Action by the State of Queensland is alleged to be in Contravention of the Constitution and involves its interpretation, and by virtue of section 78B Judiciary Act 1903 it is the duty of the Magistrates Court to adjourn the matter for such time as to allow a notice under section 78B Judiciary Act 1903 to be made and delivered to the Attorneys general of the States and the Commonwealth.

P- UNABLE TO PROVIDE LEGITIMATE BASIS

14. It is illegal for a State to take property of an individual without granting just terms by section 51 Placitum 31 Constitution. Unless a State has a legitimate reason to take property and offers reasonable compensation then it is bound by the Constitution to desist from compulsory acquisition of any property.

P- STATE PROVIDES LEGITIMATE REASON- NOT BOUND BY CONSTITUTION IN THIS

15. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or any Attorney-General of any State, or the High Court itself, may move for the removal to the High Court of the Commonwealth of this entire matter and it is neccessary for an adjournment to allow the prospective parties to examine and consider their positions.

P- THIS IS NOT A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE AG

16. Unless I consent the materiality of the lawlessness of the State of Queensland raised by this application must be determined by a jury.

P- I (MEANING ME) AM BOUND BY LAWS CONSENT OR NOT

17. It has been held in the USA in the Supreme Court that the system of law we have adopted in Australia includes the right to have the validity or not of the laws passed by Parliament determined as a material fact.

P- NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS STATE

Taken and sworn before me at Kingaroy this Fifth day of August 1998.

Deponent

A Justice of the Peace.

(Justice of the Peace/Solicitor)

Address for service

Phone no. (07) 41 632 423

Lot 7 Runnymede est rd

Nanango 4615

_________________________________________________________________

In the Magistrates court

held at Brisbane on 11 August 1998

The Queen ( in right of the State of Queensland) V Martin Essenberg

APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT

Application is made to the Magistrates Court situated at Kingaroy for an adjournment of this action on the grounds that I am still attempting to obtain legal aid from the Wakka Wakka Legal Aboriginal Corporation. I have lodged an application with the Anti-discrimination Commission to facilitate this

Orders Sought:

1. An order that the matter be adjourned for one month

SIGNED

Martin Essenberg

4 August 98

I thank the person who supplied the information below.

In the Magistrates court

held at Kingaroy.

The Queen ( in right of the State of Queensland) V Martin Essenberg, a subject of the Queen of Australia.

AFFIDAVIT

I, MARTIN ESSENBERG of Lot 7 Runnymede est Rd, Nanango in the State of Queensland, make oath and say as follows :

1.I am the DEPONENT and a citizen of the Queen in Right of the Commonwealth.

2. I challenge as "ultra vires" the right of the Parliament of the State of Queensland to pass laws to the prejudice of the Queen of Australia and my right to assist Her in the defence of the Realm.

3. The State of Queensland has made an Act of Sedition contrary to Section 24 A Crimes Act 1914 by passing an Act contrary to federal Law

. 4. An Act made contrary to Federal Law is not an Act enforcible in any Court of Queensland.

_________________________________________________________

Deponent

A Justice of the Peace.

8. Any person involved in an illegal attempt, or who has illegally passed a bill to give effect to a seditious intention has committed a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth and the parliament of the State of Queensland has attempted to undermine and destroy the rights of the Queen of Australia and as such, the members of Parliament who have attempted seition should be charged.

9. Lawlessness by a State Government and its servants, the Police Officers cannot be tolerated because the very fabric of society demands obedience to the law by everybody.

10.I truly believe it is my right as a subject of the Queen and an Australian citizen to have a trial by jury for the charge of illegal possession of Firearms because:

(e)Clause 3 of the CONSTITUTION ACT proclaimed "that ... the people of New South Wales, Victoria (etc) ... shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia."

(f)The lack of a trial by jury would undermine our existing rights enshrined for seven centuries since Magna Carta.

___________________________________________________________

Deponent

A Justice of the Peace

16. Unless I consent the materiality of the lawlessness of the State of Queensland raised by this application must be determined by a jury.

Taken and sworn before me at Fifth this day of August 1998.

Deponent

A Justice of the Peace.

(Justice of the Peace/Solicitor)

Address for service

Phone no.

In the Magistrates court

held at Kingaroy

The Queen ( in right of the State of Queensland) V Martin Essenberg APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT

On the grounds contained in the accompanying affidavit:

Application is made to the Magistrates Court situated at Kingaroy for an adjournment of this action and a consolidation of all other actions based upon the same Act of the Queensland into one action to allow the Attorneys -general of the states and the Commonwealth to respond to a Notice under section 78B Judiciary Act 1903 requesting intervention to resolve the conflict between the political powers of the Parliament of Queensland and the political powers of the Commonwealth.

Orders Sought:

1. An order that the matter be adjourned for one month to allow notices to be sent under section 78B Judiciary Act 1903 to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and the other Attorneys-General.

2. An order under section 32 Judiciary Act 1903 consolidating all actions under the Weapons Act 1990 as amended against me that the High Court may fulfil its obligations by granting complete relief in one Action.

SIGNED

Martin Essenberg

In the Magistrates court

held at Kingaroy

The Queen ( in right of the State of Queensland) V Martin Essenberg

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78B Judiciary Act 1903

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States that the action against Martin Essenberg is alleged to be in breach of the Constitution in regard to the passage of the Weapons Act 1990 as amended.

The Validity of the act is challenged as being contrary to validly enacted Commonwealth law.

Signed

Martin Essenberg.

Address for service.

� 1997 marsiegen@burcom.com.au

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page