After my loss in the courts fighting the gun laws I was not involved in dissent for a few years. I worked and paid off my debts.
A year or so ago the State Government announced that they were going to build a dam at Traveston Crossing on the Mary River. To build this dam almost 1000 families will have to leave the area of the dam. The Government is pressuring the people to leave voluntarily however will resume their land if they do not do so.
There are many economic & environmental reasons why this dam is the wrong dam in the wrong place at the wrong time. The government ignores all arguments to its proposal. It LIES and manipulates information to present the dam as the ONLY option - just as they did with the gun laws.
I believe that the laws that allow governments to compulsorily resume land were designed to allow small scale resumptions only in order that important projects proceed - I DO NOT believe that dispossessing thousands of people is something that is within the power of Parliament. If they can resume the land of 1,000 people then what is to stop them resuming the land of 5,000 or 10,000?
What is the meaning of "FREEHOLD TITLE" if at the whim of Parliament people can be evicted from their land?
If the people are evicted from the Mary Valley not only do they lose their land - WE ALL DO. All "FREEHOLD" land simply becomes a conditional permit or lease that can be revoked by Parliament when they want to.
This issue like the gun laws is about Parliamentary SUPREMACY. If they have supremacy to make any law they see fit then we are all SLAVES to their goodwill. If we are truly free people then WE are supreme and their ability to make laws is restricted by law to those areas WE allow them.
Well time marches on. It is now 2 years since my court case where all our rights to trial by jury were lost.
2 years in which gunowners ceased to be the enemy (we think) as the government brought in new laws to imprison "terrorists" without trial for weeks (perhaps years) on end.
To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller- a victim of the Nazis
First they came for the Moslems and I did not speak out because I was not a moslem.
Then they came for the.........(Trade unionist? Communist? gunowner? insert one)
But I did not speak out because I wasn't a .........(Trade unionist? Communist? gunowner? insert one)
My father was in a Nazi labour camp. Many of my brother-in-laws relatives died in the concentration camps (Arbeit macht frei).
Will I become a victim of the Australian NeoNazi Liberal party.
Nazis weren't just people who dressed in brown and bashed people. That was just the brown shirts. Nazis were people who were Mayors of towns, leaders of industry, aristocrats, and other people who were doing well out of the destruction of others in their own society and people in other countries. Nazis gave orders and other Nazis obeyed them- even when killing people was part of the program
Nazis were often just people who just went along for the ride because it was easier than opposing the oppression and deaths of others.
To some extent today we are all NeoNazis, collaborators with Top NeoNazis Bush, Blair and Howard- we all benefit from the war in Iraq since their spilled blood and stolen oil keeps world oil prices down.
So what will our NeoNazis leaders need to steal next to keep the world economy afloat? More oil? Uranium? Coal? Our freedom? Who will they need to kill to do this? Will any of us care as long as we have jobs and we aren't the ones being killed or dispossessed?
I fought the gun laws for 6 years with very little support- and lost. I am tired. My job paid my debts eventually and I retired from being a political activist- but whenever I fill up the car at the petrol station I am supporting the deaths of others and the theft of their oil. I know this. Jackboot Johnny Howard has made me a NeoNazi because I no longer have the will to oppose injustice. Its all a bit sad really
I lost and the right to trial by jury and the right to weapons for self defence went also. So was this JUSTICE? or LAW? What were the judge's reasons for refusal of my application?
We now have no rights in Australia- only permissions granted by Parliaments. NO right to trial by jury. NO right to weapons for self defence. NO right to habeus corpus (ASIO bill allows 7 days without charge). NO RIGHT TO JUSTICE
THE TRANSCRIPT IS BELOW and on the Austlii website
I am fighting the Australian gun laws. I am appealing a conviction for unlicenced possession of a rifle STOCK (yes a piece of wood- how bizarre). I am NOT interested in being found innocent of having a piece of wood. I want to prove the gun laws are illegal. I lost the case in the Criminal Court of Appeal on 31 January 2002 and am appealing to the High Court (again.) Because a QC (Queen's Counsel) is involved in my court case the case was put off until 23 June 2003.
I need DONATIONS of money to assist me with the costs of the case. The QC (from the UK) and the Barrister (from Melbourne) are not charging me for their services but they are asking me to cover their costs. I have to pay my solicitor. I need about A$20,000. Another way for people to assist would be to buy my 5 property (A$15,000)OR possibly for someone to lend me the money with the property as surety. Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org for details.
This is the last chance I have to prove that we still have the rights to a trial by jury in Australia (Magna Carta) or have the rights to have weapons for self defence (Bill of Rights (1688) so give generously.
Parliament believes they can invalidate Imperial enactments. Under the new antiterrorism laws people canbe held for 7 days without charges being made against them. It would appear that habeus corpus is another Imperial enactment under threat.
Money can be sent to:
G Down trust account- email@example.com
or mail to P.O. Box 320, Kingaroy, Queensland Australia 4610.
Any money received in donations will only be used in the court case and any surplus, if any, would be donated to charity (as required by the Law Society here)
High Court Summary of Argument B12/2002
High Court Application for Leave or Special Leave to Appeal B12/2002
Draft argument against Australia Act 1986
On another issue the buyback of handguns that our Prime Minister Johnny "Jackboot" Howard pushed on the states starts in July. The buyback was prompted by the murder in Melbourne some months ago of two Chinese Nationals by another Chinese National
The Chinese National who did the shooting was studying in Australia and had licences for a half dozen guns. Yet when interviewed by the Police he had to have an interpreter. So how did he get his gun licences under the existing stringent laws? Why should Australian gunowners be penalised for the failure of Police to enforce existing laws? Why should we Australians be penalised for the crimes of a foreign citizen? It all seems a bit crooked to me.
However this newest gun banning attempt might galvanise some support by bringing the issue up in the media a bit. I understand that there are some 100,000 handguns that will have to be bought back if the laws are brought in. So who will pay for the gun buyback? Taxpayers of course- to the tune of A$100 Million. And will the handgun-owners be happy about all this- not likely.
On another issue- Due to the more precarious world situation and the "war on terror" I applied in September 2002 to join the Australian Army Reserves. Well this war may be "the war we have to have" but it doesn't seem the Government is very active in it. It's all rhetoric. After 4 months I finally was called in for a medical. I was rejected though because of my gun offences and didn't get to do the medical. It seems that having unlicenced guns means I am not moral enough to defend the country
A friend who applied to join the Reserve about the same time has been told he might have to wait EIGHT months. I guess the army is out of money already and has to wait until the new financial year starts in July 2003 before they can hire anyone.
Here are some details of my earlier court cases.
Criminal Court of Appeal Judgement
Criminal Court of Appeal transcript of proceedings
Criminal Court of Appeal summary of argument
Criminal Court of Appeal Supplementary arguments
District Court Transcript
Nanango Court Transcript from 14 dec 2000
Submission to Russell Lebsanft ASM at Nanango, Qld on 14 Dec 2000
Sir Joh's speech to Parliament- the Australia Act was in breach of sec 53 of the Queensland Constitution
Some highlights from the transcript from my High Court case in June 2000. The full transcript is below.
Transcript of HIGH COURT APPEAL
It should be noted that I supposedly had 20 minutes to speak. Because I am not good at verbal discussion I had a prepared speech. However the Judge kept interupting and making speeches himself. Then the Judge told me that my 20 minutes was up before I had finished page 2 of my 10 page speech. I hadn't realised that as he spoke he was using up MY time. Although this was no doubt legal (after all who can oppose the will of a judge in his own court room) can this be classed as "Natural Justice"? I had more to say but had no chance in MY TIME to say it.
McHUGH J: ..................... But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
McHUGH J: No, it is not a question of an error; it is a question as to what was the power. That is the point, that the Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights were never intended to be anything more than declarations of political principle, which it was expected Parliaments would observe. If they do not observe, it is a matter for the constituents at the ballot box. .....
GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of expansion, not contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation.
McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect whatever, and that is the doctrine of this Court. ...............
Judgement- McHUGH J:
Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way that the Constitution is binding on them. Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution can legislate in disregard of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. At the highest, those two documents express a political ideal, but they do not legally bind the legislatures of this country or, for that matter, the United Kingdom. Nor do they limit the powers of the legislatures of Australia or the United Kingdom. That being so, an appeal would have no prospects of success. For that reason, special leave to appeal is refused.
Speech to Inverell forum in March 2001.
Hi my name is Martin Essenberg. I would firstly like to remind people to keep an eye on our real enemies (Republicans? Internationalists? Oil companies?).
In Kingaroy 75% of the local Aboriginal population at Cherbourg voted "NO" to the Republic. They like us, are pawns- none of them will really get land under native tiltle. They will be ripped of like us.
I would like to thank John Wilson for allowing me to plagiarise many of his legal documents. I am jealous becuse unlike John I was threatened with 6 months prison but was only fined.
I would also like to thank Garry Friend, and Peter and Colin for their assistance with legal documents.. I would also like to thank Dorthy Pratt, (formerly of One Nation) for her assistance with my pamphlets.
When I started my crusade against the gun laws I was a member of the ALP. Wayne Goss betrayed me in 1991 by bringing in Gun licences. He and Peter Beattie betrayed me further when, in opposition, they voted for the John Howard/ Rob Borbidge gun laws in 1996.
If I, as a committed party member and citizen, was no longer regarded as responsible enough to own a semi automatic - then by their choice I would become an irresponsible citizen.
I deliberately had myself arrested for unlicenced possession of some air rifles and .22 rifles. Like John Wilson I was denied a Jury trial on the basis that both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights had been amended.
On another issue- you have all been sitting for some hours. As you may be aware the Union movement is concerned with the occupational health of workers. So if you all stand we will get our blood flowing with some Union approved breathing exercises. How it works is that I call out "What do we want?" and you breath deep and respond with " Repeal the Gun laws". I then call "when do we want it?" and you respond "NOW" (We all then screamed loudly for 5 minutes).
Labor people are often not educated people. Years ago Ray Smith the editor of "Its Time" called me a socialist but when he defined it I had no idea what he was talking about. There have been many intellectual speakers at this forum - I am not one of them. Labor people base things on trust, sloguns and emotion - not books.
I would like to present my solution to our problems. I call it the "Cane Toad Rebellion". As you know Cane toads are poisonous. Animals that eat them die. I would like to poison the political careers of our politicians. If the politicians do not agree with our right to a Trial by Jury given by Magna Carta or to our right to have weapons for self defence then we vote against the sitting member irrespective of which party they belong to. Most electorates are held by less than 10%. If enough of us vote against the sitting member we can throw the lot out. It hits them because they need 3 terms to get their superannuation. If we throw them all out each election they will start to obey us.
Lastly I would like everyone to assist me with a rousing protest song.
(we then sang the "GUN BURYING SONG")
APPEAL TRANSCRIPT- DECISION
APPEAL TRANSCRIPT- Proceedings
APPEAL TRANSCRIPT- DECISION
My opening address to Court of Appeal Judges
Modified Outline that included new material which the Judges didn't see
Original Outline that judges got last week
documents lodged at Criminal Court of Appeals on 16 April 99
hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons from Phobia meaning an irrational fear and Hoplo - weapon (hoplite- a greek spear carrier.
Hoplophobia, like homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own "forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence. This would be harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The sequelae of this neurosis, includes irrational and dangerous behaviors such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution. - (from D.B)
TRANSCRIPT of the DECISION of Magistrate at KINGAROY ON 2 September 98
TRANSCRIPT OF COURT AT KINGAROY ON 7 AUGUST 98
TRANSCRIPT OF COURT AT BRISBANE ON 11 AUGUST 98
Court Case set for 7th August 98 at Kingaroy- adjourned until 2 September 98
COURT CASE Brisbane- Adjourned to 11 August 98
CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN AT THE SITES BELOW
CHECK OUT THESE
Sporting Shooters of Australia Homepage
John Wilsons fight for a Jury under Magna Carta
Mike Burke- fighting the UK gun laws
National Concealed Carry Incorporated
Lock Stock and Barrel
Guns for Self Defence
Neds Pro-gun site
© 1997 firstname.lastname@example.org