To the Court of Appeal
Re Listing Notice
OUTLINE OF APPEAL
R v Martin Essenberg
Lot 7 Runnymede Estate Rd
Nanango 4615
(07) 41 632 423
Appeal nos 135/99
136/99
Your Honour although I meet the criteria for legal aid, I have been unable to obtain it in order to present my case. I therefore propose to rely on the principle that I have the right to present my case in person. I believe it is the duty of this Honourable court to guide me and not simply reject my submissions made in person on the grounds that it has not been presented in the correct manner.
This defendant invokes the power, purpose and function of the Court which is to establish the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and to administer Justice.
This defendant calls upon the adherence by judges to their Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath which are to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second" and to "do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this State without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. SO HELP ME, GOD
Your Honour the independent Courts stand as mediators between Parliament and the citizen in the implementation of the fundamental rights and rule of law.
I understand Lord Denning summed it up;- " The fundamental principle that, where there is any conflict between the freedom of the individual and any other rights or interests, then no matter how great or powerful those others may be, the freedom of the humblest citizen shall prevail...." (Freedom under the Law - Hamlyn Lectures 1st series p.4) see also e.g. I.R.C. v. Rossminster Ltd (1980) A.C. 952.
Given my social circumstances I surely amongst the humble mentioned whose will should prevail against the mighty.
I would like to quote from Lord Denning- "In a civilised society, legal process is the machinery for keeping order and doing Justice. It can be used properly or it can be abused. It is used properly when it is used for the vindication of mens rights or the enforcement of Just causes. It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to achieve an improper end. Or the corruption can be further entrenched by yet another denial of truth, law, justice and right.
Your Honour the very beginning of the Constitution Act says we are "under the Crown" and the Coronation Oath says that the Queen must govern Australia and "execute Law and Justice with Mercy in all (Her) judgements".
I contend that the Queen was deliberately misled by her ministers in giving the royal prerogative to Acts of Parliament that have infringed our liberties.
I understand that the following summary is a correct statement of the law in relation to the Royal Prerogative:-
"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject.
The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King.
If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."
The case of R v Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham implies that Acts of Parliament cannot repeal common law and our rights have fallen into abeyance through lack of a suitable challenge.
Under our system of a constitutional Monarchy, any statute law which in violation of the common law and to the prejudice of the people is void and inoperable and should not be granted Royal assent or if it has (because ministers have misled the governor) should be disallowed by the Governor who took an oath of allegiance to the Queen
The Judges oath of allegiance is to "do right to all man according to law," common law that is. He is further directed to take nothing intro consequence or example to the detriment of the subject's liberties (from the Bill of Rights)
Rights granted by imperial enactments such as Magna Carta cannot be taken away or "overridden" by Politicians or Judges. These rights are inalienable
PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY.
The Federal Parliament and the state Parliaments are not sovereign bodies. They are legislatures with limited powers. Any law they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all. It is void and entitled to no obedience.
" For the Parliament to develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact legislation which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and to have that enactment blindly upheld by a Court, is quite another"
" If there is one thread which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional development, it is the belief that we are the servants of fundamental constitutional rules which were there before us and will be there after we are gone. From the days when the King’s subjects demanded respect for the laws of King Edward the Confessor, through the centuries in which legendary superiority attached to such acts as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the idea of our ancient rights and liberties has determined the form of our endlessly progressive/conservative constitutional change." (Allott, The Courts and Parliament Who Whom? (1979) CLJ. at 114)
As far as Commonwealth legislation, section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 says "Common law to govern" and Part 1A of the Crimes Act 1914 says "Application of the common law". States as part of the Commonwealth are held to this also.
No Parliament has the power to extinguish the right to trial by Jury which is an integral part of the Common law which was assumed by and controlled the constitution
If Parliament has the power to make a legally binding command, no matter what the subject matter of that command, then it is entirely possible that a direct conflict will arise between the duty to obey the law and the moral duty not to obey wicked laws. This conundrum was solved in earlier times by the social contract. If the sovereign failed to protect the people in the enjoyment of their basic liberties, then it breached its contract with its subjects, and the oppressive "law" could not be binding. Reliance was placed on unchanging common law, or on Magna Carta, a true convenant between the sovereign and the subject.
The Australian Parliament claims its rights and privileges from the Bill of Rights 1689 (1 Will & Mary sess 2 c 2 1689) which demonstrated that the victors in the Revolution had sought to protect, not to change, the fundamentals of the constitution. The framers of that document were simply declaring common law that already existed and would continue to exist.
They were vindicating and asserting them, and reclaiming them, from a despotic King James II who had grievously violated them.
Bentham said " Now and then, it is true, one error may be driven out, for a time, by an opposite error; one piece of nonsense by another piece of nonsense; but for barring the door effectually and forever against all error and all nonsese; there is nothing like the simple truth."
The doctrine of absolute parliamentary sovereignty is one such error and nonsense.
There are many who do not accept that Parliament was intended to have absolute supremacy or
sovereignty from the Bill of Rights Act 1688.
If Parliament were supreme why is there a need to have the sovereign (Via the Governor) give royal assent to legislation before it can become law? Because that is one of the checks and balances to protect people from tyranny.
Previous Parliaments decided to reconfirm this strong safeguard, (Magna Carta/ Bill of Rights/ Petition of Rights) via the imperial Acts Applications act 1984. It is hard to see what authority there is to give those safeguards an extremely limited effect contrary to the plain meaning of words.
The right to trial by jury is inalienable. Parliament can't legislate the right out of
existence
Quite clearly, there has been a modern-day perversion of the true meaning and intent of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
COMMON LAW
CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM
1297
1 The Magna Carta is the common law.
2 The Magna Carta is the supreme law. All other contrary law and judgments are void.
The common law is incorporated into and is not repealed by Statute Law.
Rejecting common law is rejecting the Crown.
Your Honour the State Government has abandoned Common Law.
ENTRENCHMENT
Entrenched Provisions are laws enacted by Parliament that may not be repealed or amended, or the affect of which may not be altered, by Parliament unless it follows a special, additional procedure, such as approval by the majority of electors at refrendum or approval by a two thirds majority in the Parliament. The entrenchment of a law reflects Parliaments intention to protect a law that it considers to be of special significance, by inhibiting a successor Parliament’s ability to amend the law through the normal law- making procedure.
The entrenchment of a law usually occurs by a substantive provision (the entrenched provision) being subjected to another provision (the entrenching provision) which states that the substantive provision may not be repealed or affected without observance of the special additional procedure.
To fully entrench a law, the entrenching provision must also must subject itself to a / the same special procedural requirement before it can be amended (that is the entrenching procedure entrenches itself.) When this occurs, the substantive provision is said to be "doubly entrenched"
Legal, Constitutional and administrative Review Committee report no 13, April 99 on the Consolidation of the Queensland Constitution- sec 2.3
According to Magna Carta, the rights have been granted forever. So something that has been granted forever can never become obsolete. The Rights in Magna Carta are entrenched by the final paragraph that says
And we have granted unto them for us and our Heirs, that neither we, nor our Heirs shall proc ure or do anything whereby the Liberties in this Charter contained shall be infringed or broken; and if anything be procured by any person contrary to the premisses, it shall be had of no force nor effect
Edward I
Since nothing allows this to be changed (Referendum or Parliamentary majority) these rights are doubly entrenched.
Similarly Cap II of the Confirmatio Cartarum 1297 says that:-
" and we will, that if any judgement is given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by the Justices, or by any other offices that hold plea before them against the points of the Charters, they shall be undone and holden for nought"
So the Confirmatio Cartarum further entrenches the rights granted in the Magna Carta.
The Bill of Rights 1688 is also doubly entrenched by the last paragraph that allows no method of alteration
And bee it further declared and enacted by the Authoritie aforesaid That from and after this present Session of Parlyament noe Dispensation by Non obstante of or to any Statue or any part thereof shall be allowed but that the same shall be held void and of noe effect Except a Dispensation be allowed of in such Statue [and except in such Cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more Bill or Bills to be passed dureing this present session of Parliament.]
William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange
Parts of Magna Carta (ch29), the Petition of Right are reconfirmed by Schedule 1 of the Imperial Acts Applications act 1984. However long before the Imperial Act Application Act all citizens of Australia had the rights to the common law due to their being British citizens under the crown. Magna Carta is part of that common law.
Just because Australia became independent does not mean that the full common law does not apply. If it does then that also means that should Australia (illegally) become a republic in November then all law previously applying no longer applies.
MAGNA CARTA
The Magna Carta marked an agreement negotiated between King John's government and his subjects concerning the limits and responsibilities of Government and the legal rights of free citizens. It contained the pledge that no free man should have his rights removed without the due process of law and the judgement of his peers. It is taken to be the foundation of the liberties of the citizen in the English-speaking world.
here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it. --Winston Churchill, 1956
Magna Carta has been re-affirmed in various ways some 35 times since it was first enacted in 1215.
Chapter 29 of the 1297 charter;-
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled or any other wise destroyed ; now will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, We will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right."
Edward 1 (1297) Magna Carta
The law of the land does not just mean enacted statute law. It involves the high principles of the rule of law, due process of law, constitutional law, the rules of natural justice.
Section 3 of (1627) 3 Charles I. (Petition of Right)
It says:" and where also by the statute called, the Great Charter of the Libertes of England, it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned , or be disseised of his freehold, or his liberties or his free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or I any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
And section 8 of this imperial enactment says:-
that the awards, doings and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into any consequence or example.
Therefore other cases without the accused allowed or being given the right to a trial by Jury cannot be held as precedents and cannot affect common law.
TRIAL BY JURY
The role of the jury in the protection of liberty has been emphasised by numerous authorities
Trial by Jury has been considered a fundamental safeguard of fairness and impartiality in the administration of Justice, especially of criminal justice. Jury trail stemmed from a deep seated conviction about the exercise of Judicial power, that it should not in matters affecting the liberty of the subject be entrusted unchecked to any official, judge or administrator but should be vested in ordinary citizens. The laws of Australia 21.6, part D, (38), pg 47
Case of Brown v The Queen:-
In that the judges in the High Court emphasise the important role that trial by jury has in the administration of justice. On page 179 Chief Justice Gibbs said:
The requirement that there should be trial by jury was not merely arbitrary and pointless. It must be inferred that the purpose of the section must be to protect the accused -- in other words, to provide the accused with a "safeguard against the corrupt or over-zealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge"
He goes on to say: the jury is a bulwark of liberty, a protection against tyranny and arbitrary oppression, and an important means of securing a fair and impartial trial. It is true that the jury system is thought to have collateral advantages (e.g., it involves ordinary members of the public in the judicial process and may make some decisions more acceptable to the public) -
This is a common theme in the High Court.
Also "The jury system is fundamental to the administration of the criminal law in New Zealand (and Aust.) It has as its basis the quality of a collective decision made by a group of ordinary New Zealanders in accordance with their unanimous opinion on whether or not a prosecution brought on behalf of the community has been proved beyond reasonable doubt." (Eichelbaum Chief Justice, Greig Justice, Solicitor-General v Radio NZ (1994) 1 NZLR 48,51.)
But in the long term lawyers and judges have been systematically disempowering juries for centuries The erosion of the right to trial by jury is a fact of life. Juries are practically completely out of civil cases, and the value threshold to be entitled to one in a criminal case has been raised, because jury trials are very expensive.
Therefore no court has jurisdiction to conduct a trial against me unless it accords me my right to a trial by jury.
It is my right to have trial by jury, and I am demanding that I have my right.
THE APPEAL DOCUMENT
The applicant is aggrieved by the decision because Judge Boyce –
:- did not correctly assess the arguments presented. If this judgement is allowed to stand then the Right to a Jury is minimised and the Courts can be seen to be servants of the Government and not independent.
Has failed to adequately justify his reasons for stating that the relevant provisions of Magna Carta have long since been displaced by local statutes made by the Parliament of Queensland.
I am entitled to know what the law is so that I can plan my actions accordingly. How am I to adequately appeal against his judgement when no basis for a lawful judgement was given.
Has stated that the Magna Carta is totally irrelevant as far as the offences provided by the Weapons Act of 1990.
Judge Boyce:- The appellant also relies on the Magna Carta. It is not necessary to consider the Magna Carta in any detail. Whatever may have been the provisions of the Magna Carta, the relevant provisions have long since been displaced by local statutes made by the Parliament of Queensland.
Accordingly anything that is in the Magna Carta that is said to bear on the offences provided by the Weapons Act of 1990 is totally irrelevant."
Judicial notice shall be taken of all Acts of Parliament and all regulations. Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights Act 1688 are both confirmed by the Imperial Acts Applications Act. Therefore the judiciary must take judicial notice of them. I don't believe Judge Boyce QC did this and that is an error.
It would be inconceivable that the Magna Carta and the 35 subsequent confirmations of it were not intended to mean anything yet Judge Boyce seems to have simply dismissed them out of hand.
He should have must fully consider the spirit, meaning and INTENT of those constitutional documents when acting in judgment otherwise in this instance he would be undermining the will of Parliament.
Has decided that the word "may" in legislation means that the Magistrate "may" do as he chooses to the detriment of the appellant.
Judge Boyce: "Section 161 of the Weapons act 1990 provides that, " A proceeding for an offence against the act other than section 65 may be prosecuted in a summary way under the Justices act".
In the circumstances there, there is no right to trial by jury in the matter. Accorgingly the learned magistrate was entitled to hear and determine these proceedings in a summary way. Section 19 of the Justices act provides that, " where an offence under any act is no declared to be an indictable offence, the matter may be heard and determined by the magistrates court in a summary manner."
Surely "may" may be interpreted for the benefit of the appellant with more justification given the requirements of Justice. Surely it is more just to grant a trial by Jury when requested than to reject it.
Judge Boyce has given no reasons for his rejection of my arguments. Surely I am entitled to a reasoned rebuttal of what appear to be valid arguments. Surely it shows disdain by the Judge for Justice when arguments put by the appellant are ignored.
Has failed to accept that there is an inconsistency between the statute law of Queensland on this matter and the statute law of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Has sworn to uphold the laws that I relied on, but has failed to do so
When requested to obey the validly enacted statute The Magna Carta, as set out in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 Schedule 1 (1297) 25 Edward 1 ch 29 MAGNA CARTA did refuse to follow the said Act and did thereby fail to obey a Statute forming part of the Constitution of Queensland
The APPLICANT CLAIMS
Grounds of Appeal
1. Under the laws of England (the Bill of Rights (1688)) I am entitled to keep and bear arms suitable for my defence. As a loyal subject of the Queen I am subject to the laws of England, including the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, and am entitled to the rights of law and protection
These laws are Perpetual Contracts.
Since these are entrenched laws it matter not that Parliament attempts to amend them. Such amendment is null and void.
2. The laws relied on are the laws of Queensland and of the Commonwealth of Australia and the inherited laws
3. The Commonwealth of Australia's Constitution is section 9 of the Act of the appeal of the British Parliament, 9 July 1900, and as such it is strictly bound and totally bound by the laws of England, as are always the laws of Queensland.
4, By Sections 51 and 259 Supreme Court Rules consent must be had by a judge, before he can decide Questions of Fact in any case before the court.
5. A magistrate is unable to sit without a jury without offending the Magna Carta unless the accused grants him jurisdiction. This was not done and Judge Boyce confirmed that decision.
The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine the matter summarily (Halsbury’s laws of Australia (para 130-13460)
6. This provision is to prevent corruption and the usurpation of the role of the citizen in self-government, and prevent the oppression of minorities by majorities.
7. The argument on this action is wholly concerned with obedience to Statute Law.
8. The Question whether the State of Queensland must obey the Laws of the Commonwealth is central to this case.
9. The Opinion of the High Court of Australia is that the State of Queensland must obey Federal law first and only State law when it is not in conflict was decided in RE THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES and HENDERSON &ANOR EX PARTE THE DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY FC. 97/033 High Court of Australia (1997) .
10. It has further been declared by the High Court of Australia that the Constitution is a self-executing document not requiring a Court Order for obedience. See University of Wollongong V Metwally (1984) High Court of Australia.
11. The State of Queensland is a party to that document and absolutely bound by it.
12. The State of Queensland is bound by Federal Acts of parliament absolutely as if it was a citizen of the Commonwealth by section 5 of the Constitution.
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONSENT PROCEEDINGS
13. Summary proceedings are consent proceedings in all Courts and unless the consent of the defendant is obtained, it is the law that a jury be empanelled under the Imperial Acts Application Act 1984. To say otherwise, to offend section 204 of the Criminal Code of
Queensland, is an indictable offence. However, summary offences are only offences that may be prosecuted without a jury. The operative word being "may". If one is asked for
the defendant has an absolute right to get the jury for a trial and the findings of the jury bind the sovereign. That ensures fairness and impartiality.
14. The Weapons Act, section 137, part 1, has the word "may" in it. "May" means that it is not compulsory for the offence I allegedly committed to be tried in a summary manner. It means that if I ask for a jury trial, that I am entitled to be tried on indictment.
Where does it say that trial by Jury is precluded in this case?
15. WARD v. WILLIAMS (1955) 92 CLR 496 at 8.
In considering the correctness of this interpretation it is necessary to bear steadily in mind that it is the real intention of the legislature that must be ascertained and that in ascertaining it you begin with the prima facie presumption that permissive or facultative expressions operate according to their ordinary natural meaning. "
16. The authorities clearly indicate that it lies on those who assert that the word 'may' has a compulsory meaning to show, as a matter of construction of the Act, taken as a whole, that the word was intended to have such a meaning" - per Cussen J.: Re Gleeson (1907) VLR 368, at p 373 .
17. "The meaning of such words is the same, whether there is or is not a duty or obligation to use the power which they confer. They are potential, and never (in themselves) significant of any obligation. The question whether a Judge, or a public officer, to whom a power is given by such words, is bound to use it upon any particular occasion, or in any particular manner, must be solved from the context, from the particular provisions, or from the general scope and objects, of the enactment conferring the power" - per Lord Selborne : Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880) LR 5 AC 214, at p 235 .
18. One situation in which the conclusion is justified, that a duty to exercise the power or authority falls upon the officer on whom it is conferred is described by Lord Cairns in his speech in the same case. His Lordship spoke of certain cases and said of them "(they) appear to decide nothing more than this: that where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the Legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised, and the Court will require it to be exercised" (1880) LR 5 AC, at p 225 . (at p506)
19. One situation in which the conclusion is justified that a duty to exercise the power or authority falls upon the officer on whom it is conferred, is described by Lord Cairns in his speech in the same case. His Lordship spoke of certain cases and said of them: "They appear to decide nothing more than this: that where a power is deposited with a public officer of the purposes of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out and with regard to whom a definition supplied by the legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for his exercise, that power ought to be exercised and the Court will require it to be exercised." per Lord Selborne : Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880) LR 5 AC 214, at p 235 .
20. If the legislature intended to have a Judge refuse a jury trial it would have clearly indicated its intention in the Weapons Act. A Judge can grant a jury trial and should not refuse a jury trial to grant a benefit to one litigant over another, particularly when the other litigant is a fellow public officer. In such a case "may" becomes "must", or the system is seen to be a servant of the Executive Government and not acting impartially. If the legislature intended that I not be entitled to a jury trial, it would have said "must", not "may".
21. With the Imperial Acts Application Act, there is a clear indication that the legislature intended that I have a fair and impartial jury adjudicate my case.
22. The other documents I provided, including of course the respondent's argument, both include the word "may". It says - section 161 of the Weapon's Act provides that, "A proceeding for an offence under this Act other than section 65 may be prosecuted in a summary way." The second argument of the Prosecution was section 19 of the Justices Act, "Where an offence under any Act is not declared to be an indictable offence, the matter may be heard and determined by a Magistrates Court in a summary matter."
LEGAL AID/ HUMAN RIGHTS
Your Honour, the High Court of Australia has already held that lack of representation in a trial for a serious criminal offence is likely to prejudice the right to a fair trial. Dietrich v R (1992) 109 ALR
385
My offences are not serious in that even if I lose I am only compelled to pay about a $1000 in fines. However all gun owners who have refused to obey the New Gun Laws are all similarly disadvantaged in the refusal of legal aid to assist my case.
That my arguments have been ignored in the lower courts indicates that I am unlikely to get a fair trial without legal representation.
This brings up Federal Legislation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986. And the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Under these documents I am entitled to legal representation :-
Indeed, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares in the preamble:
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human right should be protected by the rule of law."
".....the rule of law." Not statutory law, Parliamentary sovereignty or otherwise but, "....the rule of law. i.e. The Courts.
Furthermore, the Declaration expressly speaks of the fundamental human right taking precedence over a pretended Parliamentary sovereignty. Since Government has also ratified that U.N. Declaration, and the Parliament has not expressly repealed it, logically it follows that it must have intended to be taken seriously.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 - SCHEDULE 2,Article 14
Which says in part subpara 3(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does
not have legal assistance, of this right and to have legal assistance
assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
I believe the interests of Justice for myself and all other gun owners requires that I have legal representation in order to test the validity of the New Gun Laws.
I believe that the interests of Justice do require that legal assistance be supplied since the failure to obtain a trial by Jury for me allows the Parliament further control and manipulation of what goes to Juries and what does not.
The following of my arguments relate to this-
23. Australia is a signatory and fully committed member of the United Nations and has undertaken to honour and obey the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
24. It has been enacted into law as Shedule 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986 the said covenant.
25. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 declares that a Schedule to an Act is part of the Act and is law.
26. In 1994 Nicholas Toonen of Tasmania Australia successfully complained that his Human Rights were violated by the Tasmanian Criminal Code and the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva upheld his complaint and Tasmania agreed to repeal the offending legislation.
27. My civil rights have been successively violated by the failure of the legal system in Queensland to honour and uphold the principles outlined in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986. Schedule 2.
28. By Article 50 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986. Schedule 2, Queensland is bound by the Covenant.
29. The Violations that have occurred are,
(a) In Part 2 Article 1, I has been discriminated against by Judge Boyce because I did not have legal representation being in a lower socio economic class than the State of Queensland which can afford the most expensive, thereby being denied equality of opportunity to receive justice.
(b) In Article 2 Queensland and Australia has undertaken to promote equality of opportunity and Queensland has in place laws, Sections 51 and 243 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 which recognise the equality of the said Martin Essenberg with Judge Boyce QC, Mr Smith SM and Mr Lebsanft SM and require those judicial persons to obtain the consent in writing to sit without a jury before they may make any binding order. This Right was violated on every occasion.
(c) In Article 3 of Part II the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia agree that all persons are equal including Judges and Registrars, and since only a jury can determine facts in Queensland, except when the person before the Court consents thereto, by acquiesence in the decision, the decision is offensive to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commision Act of 1986. Schedule 2. A Commonwealth Act.
(d) Article 5 (2) recognises the fundamental Human Right to be adjudged by a jury of ones peers unless consent to sit without is first had, as is the Civil Right of All Queenslanders.
(e) Article 7 is violated when Justice is delivered in a degrading way, without the consent of the litigant. It is Internationally accepted that it is not degrading to be adjudged by a jury of one's peers.
(f) Article 14 makes it clear that all persons are equal before the Courts and are entitled to a competent, independent, and impartial tribumal established by law. In Queensland that tribunal must consist of a Judge and jury unless the parties consent in writing to allow a judge to sit alone. Section 118 of the Constitution guarantees the correctness of that assertion.
(g) Article 26 Affirms that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination, to the equal protection of the law. In Queensland, the fundamental protection against abuse of civil rights by the Lawyer class, which includes all judges is the provision of a trial by jury in all cases unless consent in writing is first had.
Orders Requested
An order that the Appeal be allowed and the matter remitted back to the Magistrates court for determination in accordance with law by a jury of his peers.
A order that the Queen in Right of the State of Queensland must obey the laws forming the Constitutions of Queensland and Australia.
An order that the constitution act 1900 be enforced and that the Bill of Rights be enforced and that Common law be enforced.
Further
I believe this is a matter of National importance because it affects the rights of all Australians.
I have been denied common law and I have been denied natural Justice.
I seek to supplement by written outline with oral argument.
Links to other sites on the Web
© 1997 marsiegen@burcom.com.au
Get your own Free Home Page