http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The
Democracy Defined Campaign
for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION
of
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.

THE  DEMOCRACY DEFINED INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL
CAMPAIGN.

VERITAS, COGNITIO, IUSTITIA,
LIBERTAS.

Media
and General Enquiries: [email-masked]

Kenn
d’Oudney, Mrs. Joanna d’Oudney & Astra d’Oudney.
CEO/Directors.

(Standard English Spelling)

ACTIVIST
MEMBERS from
all walks of life in
FIJI, NEPAL, SRI LANKA, SCOTLAND, AUSTRALIA,

CANADA, EIRE, INDIA, GERMANY, ULSTER, SOUTH AFRICA,
JORDAN, PAKISTAN,
FRANCE, THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND.

THE CAMPAIGN PHILOSOPHY
is spread worldwide by its
Members.
The
Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics,
attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.)
and judges (U.S. & U.K.).

~

An OPEN LETTER by Kenn
d'Oudney,
-- In Response
to --
Sue Maynes, Ed., FLORA Newsletter.
The
31st of December, 2008.

Dear Sue,

We respond to matters raised by
your writings, as follows.

IN PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND CIVIL
RIGHTS.

It is one of the illegal mechanisms by which common law
is usurped, for people to be misled into believing that the term 'common
law' refers to 'case law' and judges' rulings (stare
decisis; Latin for 'let the decision stand'). This malicious
fiction of statist propaganda comprises one of the defining features of
the present-day Illegality of the Status Quo.

Whereas genuine common law protects home and
property owners from the machinations of incompetent or corrupt judges and
politicians, this incorrectness about common law being the product of
courts constitutes defeat and surrender for owners' interests before any
litigation or process has even occurred.

Sue,
Please accept our comments as constructive and
in the spirit of amity with which they are intended.

In response to the crass legislation about which Judge
White commented: "Soviet Russia would be proud of these laws," you say:
"If I and others who are assisting me get no support we shall all pay a
very great price in the near future." It is the intention of the Democracy
Defined Campaign to support endeavours which seek to resist injustice.

We have perused considerable writings of yours on land
control. Yet, for all your studies it seems you have missed the entire
purpose and true meaning of common law. This is alas, a crucial omission,
for the authentic common law actually embodies the means by which
property ownership is, firstly, made feasible; and secondly, legally
maintained. Flora News contains and promulgates incorrectness so grave
that it (self-) defeats everything you seek to achieve for Australian home
and landowners.

In the uncompromising
requirements of Justice, according to Common Law the
convenor of trials (nowadays misnamed 'the judge'), has NO
judicial authority.

See TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True
Purpose and Modern Relevance ISBN 9781902848723.
Also see Democracy
Defined Essay EIS#9: "LEGEM TERRÆ."
Also see the constitutional,
historical and law texts of Blackstone, Crabbe, Coke, Gilbert, Hale, Hume,
Hallam, Stewart, Turner, Palgrave, et al.

If this information on common law is not known by, or
made known to, the Australian people, or if a contrary idea is
implanted into their minds as to what comprises "the common law",
then, by a lack of education or a simple trick of disinformation they will
have lost (but without properly understanding why), the foundation of
their entire heritage and culture, traditions, law, rights, property, and
indeed their very modus vivendi; and it will have been replaced by an
altogether hateful alternative.

Judged by the modern politicians' changes in
legislation and the modus operandi of the courts, if the Australian class
of home and landowners does not quickly learn, adopt and take appropriate
actions to re-establish the longstanding
common law protections of property ownership provided under the rule of
law, then Australians will discover instead they have lost their rights to
private ownership and use, along with all the other rights by which
democracy and civilisation are properly defined.

In the deteriorating present-day situation, it is
essential that all teens and adults be educated to understand how the
real common law operates to protect people from crime and
injustices of all types, including those committed by governments
bent on the (immediate or eventual) denial of private ownership of goods,
money, and property. Common law provides the means by which people are
protected from arbitrary dispossession of houses and
property, money, goods and stock of any type whatsoever. How common law
achieves this is explained herein.

THE EDUCATIONAL
CAMPAIGN.

The members of the legal profession who are Members of
the Democracy Defined Campaign have learnt from this educational campaign,
and point out that the common law and the proper workings of its
Trial by Jury Justice System have not been taught at law schools
for a generation or more. Yet, the Common Law Trial by Jury is installed
within Constitutions not only to protect the people from
common crimes by ascertaining guilt or innocence of the accused and where
necessary apportioning retribution, but also, of transcendent importance,
it is explicitly and precisely emplaced as a
barrier to protect the vast mass of innocent citizenry from
the crimes of arbitrary government, i.e., unjust laws, tyranny; and from
the prejudices and incompetence of fallible justices (judges).

The genuine Trial by Jury as prescribed and defined by
legem terræ* common law enables the people to judge authoritatively what
their laws and liberties are (by means explained below), so that the
people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy.
For these reasons, it is essential to know what comprises the
common law, and how it provides mankind's model justice system by which
Equal Justice before the law is provided to all citizens.
* terræ is
pronounced terry, the ‘æ’ as in Cæsar, seize.

Common law provides that justice system which is
definitively constitutional*, by which the people control government
(rather than the other way around).

* Definitions. (i) A
‘constitution’ is a code of laws and customs established by the
people of a nation (as distinct from government and/or bureaucrats) for
the guidance and the legal and lawful control of its government, by which
to preclude tyranny and lawlessness; a constitution may be amended only at
the behest and by the active participation of the great mass of the people
(not by government); and, ‘government’ is comprised of the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Being the legal means of
controlling and limiting the power of government, a constitution is
categorically not merely a document showing the hierarchical
administration and departmental organisation of government, though it may
also contain this.

(ii) Tyranny is defined as oppressive rule
administered with injustice; the cruel and arbitrary use of authority.

(iii) Legem terræ is the universal supreme secular
law and morality. It is not constrained to any particular time, place or
culture. The people’s legem terræ common law of the land is derived from
natural law and Equity, the natural Sense of Fairness and conscience by
which disinterested randomly-selected people in a jury situation
judge; and from natural law and justice. Common law contains NO
statutes of governments, nor rulings of judges. Legem terræ common law
became the pan-European, and subsequently pan-Occidental phenomenon which
prescribes and defines the Trial by Jury as its central tenet and sole
justice system. Legem terræ common law is recognised and inscribed into
Magna Carta at 1215, the Great Charter Constitution, instituting the
mechanisms of judicium parium, the Trial by a Jury of social-equals
(not by government or judges) to establish Equal Justice for all; and it
forbids as crime all acts of injustice.
Note. Sane
humans cannot avoid acquiring an understanding of fairness, equity and
justice. From simple human interactions, children everywhere learn to
sense injustice even before they learn the vocabulary by which to define
or explain it.

AN IRREVOCABLE PRINCIPLE OF COMMON LAW ON
'JUDGES'.

It is an irrevocable principle of the traditional
pan-European, the British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and the
American People's Common Law governing jurisprudence, and of Magna Carta
(Article 53 of John's Charter and 17 of Henry's), that Trial shall
exclusively be by Jury and that at Trial by Jury no judge or
other officer appointed by government shall preside in criminal
cases or lawsuits in which the government is also an interested party
(called pleas of the crown in the U.K.). In such cases, without the
observance of this prohibition there can be neither Trial by Jury, nor
legal trial of any type.

The reasons for this are simple
and pure: regarding convening officers ('judges') at trials, impartiality
and integrity cannot be obtained (nor realistically even expected) from
people who enforce the laws, who are selected by those who also make and
maintain the laws. At the common "law of the land," whether in civil
or criminal cases, all officers who convene trials are chosen (elected) by
the people. At common law, all convenors (justices; judges) are themselves
subject to common law and are answerable to the common law tribunals of
the people (i.e. Trial by Jury), not protected by élite privilege nor
impeachable by government and legislature.
See Book 4 of
Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 413; and Introduction to
Gilbert's History of the Common Pleas, p. 2, note, & p. 4;
etc.

Trial by Jury is so-named, for in democratic societies
the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the Jury. Trial
is not 'trial-by-government' which could never be fair where government is
also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of
government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service
and above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments'
laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide
impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil
their task or face the fury of the government, their employer.

For these reasons given, government and judiciary are
incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any
offence whatever.

RESTORATION... The Democracy Defined
Campaign.

Restoration of the constitutional common law governing
Trial by Jury implements the citizens' inherent, inalienable, eternal
rights to liberty and justice, as follows:

Firstly, to the right to a (genuine) Trial by Jury
in defence; and in Common Law Trial by Jury, the jury operates on the
presumption of innocence and is called upon to review the evidence
presented by the plaintiff, which the accused may refute.

Defence likewise may present exonerative evidence and,
furthermore, instigate a Counter Plaint or charge,
presenting the evidence for the jury's consideration as to whether aspects
of the law render its enforcement invalid or unjust; that the prosecution
is malicious or frivolous, which wastes the jurors' (the court's) time and
constitutes a crime per se.

So, the defence may be simultaneously suing the
prosecution for damages, and instigating a criminal trial of the
plaintiff. The jury is emplaced to try (judge) the causes concurrently. By
this means, the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System
discourages or pre-empts malicious private or government prosecutions; and
moreover, genuine Trial by Jury swiftly leads to the expunction of
inequitable (unjust), bad, arbitrary or unwanted legislation and vexatious
regulations.

Secondly, the ordinary citizen's right to place
the evidence in a cost-free arraignment of wrongdoer/s (regardless of the
'importance' or position of the accused) in front of fellow citizen-jurors
in a Trial by Jury. No one is above the common law of the land. No one
is 'immune'.

It is the job of elected representatives to administer
the country in a way that does not disadvantage any of its people. Humans
err. The purpose of the Trial by Jury is to protect the people from crime;
that is, both from common crime and the government crimes which would
otherwise take place with impunity as a result of the human fallibilities
of politicians and the judiciary.

Whereas most people would prefer to pursue other
occupations, the representatives' (MPs, congressmen and women, etc.) duty
is to take care of the uncontroversial nuts and bolts of day-to-day
administration of a society. Categorically, they are not there to promote
partisan interests. That activity constitutes crime per se. The
common law Trial by Jury exists to bring such corrupt administrators to
account. At the common law, there is no immunity for those perpetrating
venal or unjust activities, whatever their high place in society.

The aforegoing constitutes
a reason why some judges and politicians
are active in denying and destroying Constitutional Trial by Jury:
the criminally corrupt reveal themselves as such by their very
antithesis to Trial by Jury.

Citizen-Juries educated and instructed to judge on the
justice of law and its enforcement, can be relied upon to protect people
from the state (i.e. government), when the state breaches correct
behaviour in attempting to enforce injustices. It is for this
reason that those who stand to gain money and/or
power from tyranny by the imposition of unjust 'laws', regard the Trial by
Jury as an obstacle to be undermined and destroyed. Untrustworthy
at best, of outright criminal intent at worst, are those who, instead of
restoring Common Law Trial by Jury to its true form and ascendance of
power, would discard it altogether.

Authentic Trial by Jury
provides the mechanism for peaceably and effectively curtailing malevolent
authoritarian government. Indeed, that is expressly the purpose for which
Trial by Jury was installed by Magna Carta, the repeatedly ratified Great
Charter Constitution, as the sole justice system for all crimes, civil,
criminal and fiscal, and subsequently adopted by every legitimate
constitution.

DEMOCRACY.

To preclude arbitrary (i.e., tyrannical; illegal)
government and establish liberty and equal justice for all, the Hellenes
created the society in which the common people have the power in Trial by
Jury to judge the laws and overrule laws and measures enacted by the
national assembly. The word the Hellenes gave to describe
this state of society in which the citizens have control through the
Trial by Jury to judge, make and enforce the laws and overrule the
government, the wealthy and powerful, the aristocrats and all the people
who sought to rule them was demokratia, which translates into English as
Democracy.

Democracy is founded on the Trial by Jury, derived from
the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury. Through
its etymology, history and signification, the word democracy
designates the constitutional justice system. Constitutional
Democracy is based on the sovereignty of the
individual citizen-juror in as the final arbiter of law and protection of
the people from tyranny.

Naturally, people have the moral responsibility, the
right and the duty to resist and suppress injustice wherever it occurs, and
by whomsoever it is perpetrated, governments notwithstanding.
By definition and in practice, Democracy requires that the People
at all times retain the Supreme Power to
annul injustices and the bad laws made by fallible politicians.

This Power is uniquely embodied in the
Citizen-Juror's Duty in Trial by Jury: to judge the justice of every
act of law enforcement, and to render the Not Guilty Verdict whenever
conviction or punishment of the accused would be unfair, according to the
juror's conscience.

Legem terræ common law in which it is the jurors’ duty in
the Trial by Jury Justice System to judge the justice of the law and the
act of enforcement, and acquit any persons accused under an unjust or
apocryphal statute or regulation, is thus superior to any statutes or
regulations made by national or local governments.

Consider U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone on the
Juror's Duty, as follows:

"If a juror feels
that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or
that it infringes upon the defendant's natural God-given unalienable or
Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the
offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is
no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust
law.

"That juror must vote Not
Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him
by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience
disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own
conscience and convictions and not someone else's. The law itself is on
trial quite as much as the case which is to be
decided."
U.S. Chief
Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.
(Emphases
added.)

ETYMOLOGY
(linguistic
derivation).

Hellenic Greek, Demokratia,
Democracy.
demos, the people; kratos,
sovereignty*, power; kratein, to
rule.

*Perseus Digital Library, Tufts
University. See Democracy Defined Essay EIS#10, "We the People and the
Matter of Words," downloadable for free from the Democracy Defined
Campaign Material webpage.
Chambers Dictionary, etymology,
demos, the people; kratein, to rule;
MSN Encarta.
Democracy, demos, the people; kratein, to
rule;
etc.

From the etymology comes
the definition: Democracy, the
form of government in which the Sovereign Supreme Power is vested in the
Common People; the emancipation and ethos of society produced by the power
of Juries of ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury, to vet, make, decide and
enforce the law; the people rule.

In order to understand the meaning of the
word, it is essential to know first that democracy embodies the people's
control over government and law through the Common Law Trial by Jury. The
people control the government, not the other way around. The people
rule. This is democracy.

Viz. The word 'democracy' is widely abused and 'defined'
incorrectly: Democracy is a state of society realised neither by
referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by suffrage
(electoral voting for representatives), nor by the representatives'
majorities' legislative voting. Electoral voting, majority rule and
'consensus politics' neither create nor define democracy.

Democracy, that is, "the people rule through Trial by
Jury," is independent of and ultimately governs all the activities of
popular, electoral or legislatorial voting. The referendum can take place
in a democracy, but, of course, it cannot create democracy. Democracy is
only brought into being by Trial by Jury.

In the attempt to mislead people away from the profound
and powerful significance of the word democracy which is defined by and
founded upon common law and the People's Trial by Jury Courts, many
perverted fictions of miseducation are foisted upon the population. This
perfidy is the dismal work of publishers, editors, politicians in
government, and other knowing and unwitting representatives of those
behind-the-scenes oligarchs who seek to extinguish the illuminatory
emancipation of the word and prefer that the population should not learn
the true meaning.

In pursuit of their self-interested antidemocratic goals,
these villainous criminals go to the greatest lengths to prevent and deny
the genuine Trial by Jury Justice System holding sway over society in
general, and them in particular. Thus is explained the singular source of
the degeneration of Democratic (Western) Civilisation, and the
misinformation in many writings, lexicons and 'law dictionaries'.

Magna Carta, The Great Charter of English Liberties of
1215, is the exemplar, the paradigm of written constitutions. Magna Carta
is comprised of legem terræ articles of the Supreme Common Law which
governs all government personnel, including heads of state, and the entire
population equally. The Great Charter Constitution’s valued precepts of
justice are timeless and apply everywhere, in all times and places. It is
for these reasons that Magna Carta is revered as a conspicuous historic
landmark establishing the model tenets by which civilisation is achieved,
sine qua non.

The Great Charter Constitution's articles of legem terræ*
common law of the land prescribe and define the inimitable, democratic
Trial by Jury Justice System; the rôle of Jurors; set the parameters
limiting the rôle of judges and government within the justice system; and
recognise and establish that all persons in government without exception
are subject and liable to prosecution for infraction of strictures of the
Constitutional common law; viz. article 61.

These universal principles of morality and Equal Justice
were also adopted by the U.S. Founding Fathers and framers of other
Constitutions, who constitutionally adopted European and English
Common Law Trial by Jury as the sole Justice System for all
crimes (unimpeachable).

It is the implementation of the common law
Trial by Jury through which "the people rule," which forms and defines
democracy. Within the society which is democratic, the assembly (councils,
congress, senate, parliament, etc.) remains of inferior authority to the
decisions of juries in Trial by Jury.

In soviétique and parliamentary processes everywhere,
assemblage embodies the initial, preliminary procedure of government,
wherein proposal, debate and voting, frame measures and 'enact' laws.
Trial by Jury is the decisive, superior stage: citizen-jurors are
sovereign to judge the laws and causes in all their aspects, to decide
whether, and if so, how, to give effect to their
execution.

WHAT THE "COMMON LAW"
IS NOT .

It is crucially damaging miseducation to the Australian
property owner and people, and moreover mute acceptance of unlawful
government usurpation of all natural, common and constitutional law, in
Flora News, Vol. 1, Issue 4 to say:

On page 11: "Law derived from judicial precedents is called 'Common
Law'."

Page 15: "Common Law [judicial
precedent] carries the law of the Sovereign
people."

P.
16: "The only courts in
which you will find your common law rights are the Common Law division of
the Supreme Court and the High Court."

Flora: Farmers' Land
Ownership Rights in Australia.

Sue,
Common law is misrepresented and severely
undermined by this incorrectness. It capitulates to the state
courts (judges) and politicians the power of final decision of the right
of the individual to own property in general; and the right to own a
property in particular, despite possession of the documentary proof of
ownership.

If 'common law' were to derive, as you say, from the
rulings of judges (which it never does) then a judge's decision which
denied and negated rights to private ownership in any case whatsoever,
including what you call "common law rights of land ownership," would make
that ruling 'the law' which forms a basis fatal to all further
cases in which people sought to hold on to their
property.

The above quotations from your article indicate a
misunderstanding (or calculated acceptance of the misuse) of the term
'common law' and hence, of what the term 'Trial by Jury' actually
involves. Bearing in mind that there is widespread
miseducation about these issues of justice, it is necessary to establish
exactly and promulgate widely what the common law and Trial by Jury
really are, if one is to see ownership rights upheld
successfully.

THIS CASE RULING EXEMPLIFIES DEMOCRACY AT
WORK:

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognise the
undisputed power of the jury to acquit even if its verdict is contrary to
the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence."

"If the jury feels that the law under which the
defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified
the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic
or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by
that decision."
United States v. Moylan; U.S. Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969.

Neither in the United States,
Britain, Eire, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, nor in all of Europe and
elsewhere, have legislatures ever been invested by the People with
authority to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the
jurisdiction of jurors to govern government; nor to remove the universal
Right of the accused to the Trial by Jury of peers for any charge or
offence whatever, however serious or trivial.

Today, U.S. v Moylan is not
exemplified by the modus operandi of courts throughout the West. Democracy
has been overturned by our politicians and judiciary.

WHAT
IS THE COMMON LAW ?

(i) The common law is legem terræ and
vice versa as inscribed into the Great Charter in 1215.

Natural law and justice are eternal
and universal; not geographically constrained nor limited to a set time.
Common Law derives from natural law. It serves to protect all the
individual persons equally. (If a measure does not do this, it is not
common law.) Common law is essential to the survival of civilised values.
Although individuals comprising governments can judicably abuse and
infract common law, by definition and in practice, it cannot legally be
'changed' or superseded by
governments.
Definition. judicable, that which can be tried by jury in
a court of law.

Governments are comprised of ordinary people of flesh
and blood, who have no more nor less rights than anyone else. Common law
protects (is intended to protect) all people from the injustices of common
and government crimes. Throughout history to date, common law and its
central tenet, the Trial by Jury Justice System, have been interfered with
and suppressed by rogue governments bent on tyranny, and resuscitated from
time to time. The lessons of history teach humans everywhere to
distrust governments which in any way vitiate the supremacy of the
rule of common law; and that action requires to be taken by the people to
uphold and restore common law whenever it is undermined by government. The
following are definitive aspects of common law.

(ii) Trial by Jury is the
sole justice system prescribed by legem
terræ, the common law, which comprises the pan-European People's
fundamental code and constitutional law as defined and prescribed by Magna
Carta in 1215, and subsequently adopted by the Australian, Canadian, U.S.
and other Constitutions. Trial by Jury is also known as
"judicium parium*
suorum," i.e. the judgement of equals* (pares or
peers; from the Latin).

(iii) Common
law thus prescribes that for any charge or offence,
however serious or trivial, no person shall be
dispossessed, punished or in any way disadvantaged, except according to
the lawful judgement or sentence of a unanimous jury
of jurors randomly chosen according to common law principles, of
his or her social-equals in the Trial by Jury.

According to common law, the Trial by Jury is the
only system which is legal for all process of law, civil, criminal
and fiscal. This was duly recognised and inscribed into Magna Carta
(viz. Article 39).

That is to say, government
only has the power to act against a
person, his property or liberties by the authority of, and according to
the sentence of a jury.

(iv) The jurors' duty to do justice, and
the Right of Juries to find the Verdict according to the jurors'
convictions and conscience, are amongst the duties which define the
Trial as being by Jury (as opposed to it being
trial by government or
trial-by-judge).

Without the function of judging on justice issues having
been undertaken by the jurors,
self-evidently, Trial by Jury cannot be said to have taken place.

(v) The
genuine common law must be differentiated from that which modern
government has corrupted by legislation: a counterfeit
which is "common law" in name only:

Common law does NOT include any statutes made by
government nor decisions made by judges. That is to say, common law is
neither "government-made" nor "judge-made." It does not consist of case
precedents (stare decisis), for in the Constitutional
Trial by Jury juries decide the law and sentence, if any, in each separate
case; nor of judicial rulings, decisions or interpretations of statutes.
When it is asserted to be any of the latter, this exemplifies
government miseducation, usurpation and tyranny at
work.

All people including executive, legislature
and judiciary are subject to and bound by the common law of the
land.

The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury
Justice System intentionally takes a person out of the government's hands
(i.e. from judges, prosecutors, police and prison service) and places the
accused under the protection of his or her equals and the Common Law
alone: Trial by Jury allows no man or woman to be punished unless the
indiscriminately chosen equals of the accused (i.e., the jurors) consent
to it.

EMANCIPATION.

Having established what common law
is, one must note the extent to which the
term common law has been abused: it is an opprobrium to misinform people
that "common law" is a product of judges, stare decisis,
and government courts. Worse though: it is utterly wrong to allow
government to rob the people of their true common law and its power of
emancipation.

It is unconstitutional and tyrannically
illegal to amend in effect the constitution's installation of common law
and Trial by Jury by co-opting the common law by legislation into a body
of law passed by congress or parliament, or made by judges. For this has
been the means of burying common law and the authentic Trial by
Jury, to enable government to obliterate the People's ability (peacefully)
to decide their liberties for themselves, and to protect their lives,
liberty and property from judicial corruption or incursions by any
government bent on injustice. It moreover supplants humankind's model
justice system of the Trial by Jury with the flawed, one-sided,
inherently-illegal despotic system of trial-by-judge.

Common Law is indispensable to the
maintenance of civil peace, the well-being of all the population, and
(where this does not impinge upon the equal rights of others), to the
inalienable right of humans to unmolested tranquillity of existence and
the pursuit of happiness. Hence, it is of supreme importance that,
for their own benefit, every sane teen and adult comes to understand the
common law and, without compromise, support and ceaselessly campaign for
the restoration of its supremacy.

Common law is the supreme universal legal
and moral code which 'exists' independently of and above statute law.
Whether governments acknowledge and submit to common law is the criterion
for measuring their legitimacy.

We hope the following explanation is
helpful.

EXCERPT from Part (Chapter)
Seven,
"JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION,"
THE REPORT ISBN
9781902848204; pp. 195 - 197.

THE REPORT, Foreword by a Nobel laureate
former Official Adviser to the U.S. government; endorsed by a Professor
Fellow of the Royal Society, academics, doctors (of jurisprudence,
philosophy, medicine, homeopathy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.).
See:

http://www.democracydefined.org/1report.htm

"DO-AS-YOU-WOULD-BE-DONE-BY"
THE UNIVERSAL
SENSE OF FAIRNESS.

In all times and places,
from commonplace interactions and the experiences of life, a sense of
fairness is acquired by children at a very young age, and possessed by
adult humans (see Justice Sir William Jones: Jones on Bailments; and TRIAL
BY JURY ISBN 9781902848723). This sense of fairness bestows on humans
everywhere, i.e. universally, an understanding of what is called natural
law and justice.

Natural law may be described as the Science of
Justice. It is comprised of the Principles embodied in the basic
components of Truth, Justice and Equity. The Universal Sense of Fairness
is, like other senses, not imparted or taught to children by adults: it is
not a case of “Let me tell you, children...” Certainly, the conscientious
adult, teacher and parent will spare no effort in bringing young people
into the advantageous awareness of how to behave in society; but this can
be and frequently is perverted by prejudices and failures of character in
grown-ups; or in the "thieves' kitchen," and so on.

The Sense of Fairness is not taught; but it is
learned. The Universal Sense of Fairness is acquired almost intuitively.
Humans cannot avoid learning the principles of natural law.
Children sense that they do not like nasty things done to them and that
other people feel exactly the same. They gather this from simple
experiences of emotional and/or physical pain; from their receipt of petty
injustices; and from assimilating the reactions of others to acts of
unfairness inflicted against them.

The Universal Sense of Fairness is virtually
infallible in teaching humans everywhere to understand natural law and
justice. Children learn fairness even before they learn the language with
which they can explain or define it. Indeed, it is necessary for people to
be conscious of the sense first, in order to understand the true meaning
of the words by which fairness is described.

Children learn that when one person has a sandwich,
it is that person's possession, and others should not take it away from
him without his assent. They come to understand further that the willing
exchange of the sandwich for a toy or other object of desire, means that a
'transaction' of 'ownership' has taken place, and that the sandwich cannot
fairly be reclaimed unless by another mutually agreed transaction.

Such are the fundamental principles of natural law,
and they govern most or all of the greatest interests of individuals and
society.

In this way, all people learn the constituents of
Equity (i.e. fairness) and the commandment (i.e. rule of action) of
natural law: the precept "do-as-you-would-be-done-by," or as it is often
written, "do unto others as you would they do unto you." The unwritten
common law of the People, "the law of the land" (ref. e.g. Magna Carta,
Article 39; see page 184), derives from and is founded on this pure sense.
Based on the "do-as-you-would-be-done-by" precept, the common law is
applicable universally.

It is the Sense of Fairness
which endows humans universally with conscience, the faculty or
principle by which we distinguish right from wrong in regard to our
relations with others. Adults know when they are recipients of
acts of unfairness or injustice; and similarly, they know when
they do such wrong to others. Hence, all adult people qualify to be
empanelled as jurors to judge both the justice of the law and of the
intent, criminal or innocent, of the acts of others; and may likewise be
judged by others in the common law's Justice System: Trial by Jury.

Equity is defined as moral justice and the spirit
of fairness; which, to be legal, governments' written laws (statutes) are
required to reflect. That is to say, unjust laws, i.e. embodying tyranny,
cannot be enacted legally anywhere (cf. International Law; Crime Against
Humanity). Because statutes are fallible and imperfect written
expressions, they require interpretation.

THE RULE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
LAW.

The superiority of natural law is witnessed, and
confirmed, by the fact that the written law (statutes) must be interpreted
by the natural. Because natural law and the Sense of Fairness are reliable
and universal, the judiciary is governed by the
rule that, for the interpretation and determining the meaning
of the words comprising a written law, the language of statutes and
constitutions shall be as closely as possible construed consistently with
natural law. Whenever written law (statutes) cannot be construed
consistently with natural law and justice, the written law infracts common
law, rendering the statute abrogate and illegal.

Through this conception of fairness, adults know
what constitutes justice, and what justice requires.

Whilst outside of the jury situation, adults behave
(whether fairly to others or not) according to what they consider to be in
their interests, within the jury, when ordinary citizens know the facts
from which a verdict is to be inferred, they arrive at the same conclusion
or verdict, unless there is reasonable doubt ceded by the inconclusive
nature of the evidence.

Citizen-jurors are aware that they rely on their rights
being upheld by judgements of jurors just such as they, to whom they are
an example. So, whereas there is the strongest of incentives to judge
truly and well, there exists no reason at all for disinterested ordinary
citizens to render any verdict but the one which is fair and true.

Hence, regarding aspects of justice, equity and
fairness in respect of people's treatment of one another, all adults are
qualified to try and to judge each other's behaviour -- with the
obvious exception of government representatives and employees:
prosecutors, judges, police and prison service, etc. These latter are
remunerated and feel themselves compelled to enforce the legislation of
their employer, the government, regardless of its potential injustice;
because failure to do so incurs impeachment, punishment and/or expulsion
from their jobs. These inevitably biased people cannot but make
incompetent judgements on the justice or otherwise of their masters' laws.
It must be stressed nevertheless, that the enforcement of injustice is a
common law crime and where acts constitute enforcement or abetment of
tyranny they are punishable under domestic and International Law. See
ratified U.N. Principles, page 182.

Trial of an accused by a Jury of his or her peers
(equals) is a central tenet of common law. Trial by Jury serves the people
both as a system for the enforcement of just laws, and also, of paramount
importance, as a constitution of itself in that it provides democratic and
lawful control of the wayward measures and powers of abusive
governments.

In Apprehending Defining Attributes,
Note
that within a Democracy:

firstly, the executive, legislatures, judiciary and
all People are subject to, bound by, and judicable under, the law of the
land, the universal natural and common law;

secondly, the People, as opposed to the government,
comprise The Supreme Legislature: common law is that law which is made by
the People as enforced by Jurors in each Trial by Jury; and,

thirdly, common law, which is known without being
taught, which is learned without being written or read, which is the
product of the People's Universal Sense of Fairness, Natural Law and
Justice, which is known as "the law of the land," and of which Trial by
Jury is the central tenet, constitutes the basis of proper civilisation,
sine qua non.

Trial by Jury is an anti-racist, anti-sectarian,
egalitarian measure, which militates on behalf of Good against Evil. Where
practised, Trial by Jury envelops the entire adult population, cultivating
and propagating those higher human concepts of natural justice, truth,
social responsibility, liberty and equity, essential to civilisation,
progress and the ongoing development of human cultures.

Since pre-historical time immemorial, juries of
European people from all backgrounds, some literate, others not, have
agreed on and enforced common law in the Trial by Jury, against injustices
of all types: tyranny, murder, torture, mental cruelty, bodily harm, rape,
robbery, theft, extortion, arbitrary dispossession, fraud, etc. It serves
the interest of the individual citizen and the People at large to do so.
That is to say, the People reliably enforce just laws; and, only laws
which are just are those which should and must be enforced. (Even and
especially the covert undiscovered felon called to serve on a jury,
enforces the just laws, for not to do so would reveal his unsalubrious
character to the other jurors, bringing numerous malconsequences upon
himself.)

However, if the justice of a law is not evident,
and the sentence of punishment (being part of the law) cannot be accepted
as justifiable and fair by twelve indiscriminately chosen adult citizens,
then that 'law' is no law at all: it requires Annulment-by-Jury and must
not be enforced. When juries regularly reject (nullify) prosecutions of a
statute, that statute requires legislative expunction.

With Trial by Jury holding sway, laws count for
naught unless they be just. Thus the People are served, not ruled, by
governments. Such government then cannot but embody truly democratic
ideals and civilised aspirations. This type of government attracts, and is
comprised of, representative democratic citizens; and no tyrant can attain
power. At the behest of juries of ordinary citizens, the state is
constrained into enforcing only just principles and democratic attitudes
which accord with the People's judgement, such as those represented by
common law: fraternity, liberty, egalitarianism, progress and
justice.

By the diligent upholding of
this Constitution, all tyranny is pre-empted.
Not only are bureaucratic and fiscal injustices eliminated, but tyrants,
great and petty, are emasculated. This enforceable democratic control by
the People was constitutionally emplaced to extend equally over the
historic and current 'religious' tyrannies, as to secular, which are
suffered under man's inhumanity to man.

Thus, Constitutional Democracies founded on the
Common Law Trial by Jury respond to, but cannot initiate, aggression,
including wars so-defined. If Trial by Jury had remained operating
throughout the European nations, whence it originated, the Hohenzollern
and Hitler tyrannies would have been truncated, and the Holocaust and both
World Wars averted.

[END OF EXCERPT FROM THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204.]

REFERENCES CONFIRMING WHAT COMMON LAW
IS.

Here are some references confirming the common law is
legem terræ of Magna Carta.

Sir Matthew Hale: "The common law is sometimes
called, by way of eminence, lex terræ, as in the statute
of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally
intended by those words, aut per legem terræ; as appears
by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly
in the statute of 28 Edward III, chap. 3, which is but an exposition and
explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliæ, as in the
statute of Merton, cap. 9, Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari,' etc. (We will
that the laws of England be not changed.) Sometimes it is called lex et
consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all
commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I, and
de quo warranto, and divers others. But most commonly it
is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England;
as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, chap. 15, in the statute 25
Edward III, chap. 5 (4) and infinite more records and statutes."
1 Hale's History of the Common Law, p. 128.

Crabbe: "It is admitted, on all hands, that it (Magna Carta)
contains nothing but what was confirmatory of the
common law, and the ancient usages of the realm, and is,
properly speaking, only an enlargement of the charter of Henry I, and his
successors."

Crabbe's
History of the English Law, p. 127.

Blackstone:
"It is agreed by all our historians that the Great
Charter of King John was, for the most part, compiled from the ancient
customs of the realm, or the laws of Edward the Confessor; by which they
mean the old common law, which was
established under our Saxon princes."
Blackstone's
Introduction to the (Great) Charters; Blackstone's Law Tracts, p.
289.

Coke (a High Court judge): "The common law
is the most general and ancient law of the realm. The common law
appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta, and other ancient statutes (which
for the most part are affirmations of the common law) in
the original writs, in judicial records, and in our books of terms and
years."
1 Coke's Institutes, p. 115.

Coke: "It (Magna Carta) was for the most part
declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England.
They (Magna Carta and Carta de Foresta) were, for the most part, but
declarations of the ancient common laws
of England, to the observation and keeping whereof the king was bound and
sworn."
Preface to 2 Coke's Institutes, p. 3.

Nota Bene: To judge the law,
i.e. its fairness, validity, applicability, and legal meaning
(interpretation), the Jurors are the sole legal
judges prescribed by constitution and common law.
For example, see the following from Blackstone and Gilbert:

"This position" (that the matter of law was decided by the
justices, but the matter of fact by the pares [peers, i.e. jurors]) "is
wholly incompatible with the common law, for the Jurata [jury]
were the sole judges both of the law and the
fact."

Gilbert's History of the Common Pleas, note, p.
70; and

"The Annotist says, that this [i.e. whether jurors reflect upon
the question of law] is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but
it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the
land the jury are judges as well as the matter of law, as of the
fact, with this difference only, that the judge on the bench
is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if
they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may
then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they
are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent
judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the
judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take
upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in
matter of law."

Gilbert's History of the Common Pleas, p.
57.

"The trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will
be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most
transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that
he cannot be affected in his property, his liberty, or his
person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and
equals."
3, Blackstone's Analysis of the
Laws of England, p. 379.

Laws which are plainly just require
little debate or explanation. Until a written law is thus evidently and
plainly just it merits no place in the statute book: its prosecution
requires Annulment-by-Jury; its expunction from the roll of legislation is
mandated by juries’ rejection of its enforcement.

The jurors are the judges. Advice may be
requested by the jurors from the convenor (nowadays misnamed
'judge') who need not be qualified in the law to perform the functions of
convenor because, according to common law, if explanation of a law is ever
required, or its justice or validity and hence its very legality is
disputed, both the plaintiff and the accused and their counsel, and
amicus curiæ (Latin for 'a friend to the court'; an impartial adviser not
a party to the case) may render such explication as the jury deems
necessary. Jurors may observe or reject advice about the law as they
consider appropriate and decide the verdict according to their individual
conscience (i.e., sense of fairness, right and wrong).

TRIAL BY JURY IS THE
PAN-OCCIDENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

The following statutes enacted in the century after
Magna Carta, corroborate that our cherished Australian, American,
European and English heritage, the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice
System, is, by statutes subsequently enacted, recognised as being
Constitutional (legally irrevocable unless by
universal amendment and consent) and is that of legem terræ, the people's
law of the land, the common law:

"That no man, from henceforth, shall be attached by any
accusation, nor forejudged of life or limb, nor his land, tenements,
goods, nor chattels, seized into the king's hands, against the form of the
Great Charter and the law of the land."
Ruffhead's Statutes, 5, Edward III, Ch. 9. (1331)

"Whereas it is contained in the Great Charter of the
franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned, nor put out of his
freehold, nor of his franchises, nor free customs, unless it
be according to the law of the land (nisi per legem
terrae); it is accorded, assented, and established, that from
henceforth none shall be taken by petition, or suggestion made to our lord
the king, or to his council, unless
it be by indictment or presentment of good and
lawful people of the same neighbourhood [Trial by Jury]
where such deeds be done in due manner, or by process made by writ
original at the common law; nor that none be put out of
his franchises, nor of his freehold, unless he be duly brought in to
answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law [Trial
by Jury]; and if anything be done against the same, it shall be
redressed and holden for none."
Ruffhead's Statutes, 25,
Edward III, Ch. 4. (1350)
Emphases added.

AN ETERNAL CRITERION OF JUSTICE.

It remains a universal eternal criterion of justice
that the validity and justice of laws and their enforcement require to be
judged not by those who make and enforce
the laws, but by those who voluntarily agree to abide by the laws. All
those who do not uphold this tenet are then promoting unlawful rule by a
tyrannical élite. Unwittingly, or for self-advantage, they serve despots,
abet tyranny, and are the criminal enemies of freedom and justice.

To give up the true definition and meaning of the term
common law surrenders all power and rights of the people
peacefully to protect their liberties and themselves from crimes,
in particular those comprised of arbitrary or cruel decisions of
politicians and the government-appointed judges. People's rights are
illegitimately destroyed by their ignorant or obsequious acceptance
as "sovereign," the will of politicians expressed as legislation, and
"rule" through judges; a procedure which displaces the people's rights to
equal justice through the Common Law Trial by Jury.

TO JUDGE THE LAW IS MANDATORY.

Citizens' authoritative judgement on the justice of law
and every act of its enforcement is not only morally obligatory but it is
also legally imperative. At all times, every adult person has the moral
responsibility to suppress injustice. Every act of injustice is a common
law crime, whether committed by private citizens or by the state
(tyranny). Citizens and government employees alike are accountable for
their actions. See Crime Against Humanity; the Nuremberg Precedent; etc.,
and ratified Principles, U.N. Resolution, 12-10-1946:

PRINCIPLE I: "Any person
who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible and liable to punishment."

PRINCIPLE II: "The fact that internal law
does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under
international law does not release the person who committed the act from
responsibility under international law."

PRINCIPLE III: "The fact that a person
who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law
acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve
him from responsibility under international law."

PRINCIPLE IV: "The fact that a person
acted pursuant to the order of his government or a superior does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral
choice was in fact possible to him."

Whether by participation in the enforcement
of arbitrary legislation, or from the following of direct orders, being
party to the execution of injustice makes the person involved liable to
punishment for a grave criminal offence (cf. Crime Against
Humanity).

In the Trial by Jury context, the moral
choice quoted above is ALWAYS "possible;" it is definitively obligatory:
the "choice" is mandatory. It constitutes a judicable* infraction of
natural, common, and international law whenever judges, court rules,
political interventions or any factors impede, discourage or prevent this
judgement on the law.
* Definition.
judicable, that which may be tried by jury in a court of law.

De jure, under pain of penalisation, all
those involved at every stage of the creation, maintenance and enforcement
of law, including jurors, must make the moral choice and judge the law,
and accordingly take the appropriate action or make the apposite
decision.

ANNULMENT-BY-JURY.

Annulment-by-jury (also known as 'jury nullification')
is a fundamental part of common law. It is explicitly the reason why
lawful constitutions install Trial by Jury, because annulment-by-jury
embodies the only (peaceful) mechanism which legally
protects the people from the intentions, and redresses the acts, of unjust
governments.

There is a serious shortcoming in what some
people call the "fully informed" jury "strategy." A jury is not at all
"fully informed" simply because its members have been apprised of the
Juror's power to annul unjust laws and prosecutions by pronouncing the
Not Guilty Verdict. Without the
additional pre-trial education of the jurors on the means by which to
wield the weapon of annulment, that is, the straightforward common
law definitions and criteria regarding
injustice, crime and guilt by
which to judge laws, the jury is far from "fully informed."

If justice is to be done
and the process is to be a proper Trial by Jury, the Jurors' function of
judging on justice issues cannot be taught in isolation from the other
important, definitive tasks (delineated herein) which they must
perform.

Writing about the Juror, John Adams pointed out the
following:

"It is not only
his right but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best
understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to
the direction of the court [i.e. the
judge]."
John Adams, lawyer;
U.S. President. Yale Law Journal, 1964; 173. See more in DEMOCRACY DEFINED books.
It is of little
sense telling citizens about their power to annul unjust laws without
simultaneously teaching them the common law criteria by which
injustice and crime are identified: the simple, but vital, facts by which
a law and every act of enforcement must be judged in order to ascertain
whether such enforcement embodies an act of injustice which requires
annulment-by-jury. This is a crucial
issue, for the act of enforcement of an unjust statute comprises
crime per se; a malicious, judicable felony (cf. tyranny;
see Crime Against Humanity; the Nuremberg Precedent, etc.).

Jurors must be briefed on
the simple common law criteria by which justice demands the law be judged.
They cannot be expected to know these criteria without some instruction.
The importance of this instruction is better understood in consideration
of the fact that it is an easy matter and quite the routine for corrupt
courts (judges) bent on serving tyranny to pervert and obstruct the course
of justice by actively misinforming the jurors and preventing them from
learning what their definitive duties are. Jurors can be overawed and
intimidated into complying with the incorrect and actually criminally
tampering requirements of such courts. In this way, jurors can be
lawlessly induced to support inequitable, unlawful legislation and
manipulated to uphold unjust acts of enforcement: common law Trial by Jury
is thus annihilated.

Consider that, in direct breach of common law governing
the rôle of jurors in Trial by Jury, jurors are misdirected
by judges not to let their (the juror's) opinion of the law to influence
their decision; and that they must enforce the law as the judge dictates
it to the jury. Further, while the counsel for the defence is forbidden by
courts on pain of punishment and disbarment for contempt, from presenting
evidence "disputing the justice or legality of the law," by
guilded but perfidious tones, the prosecutor is permitted to harangue the
jury with utter mendacity to persuade jurors that the worst of venal,
inequitable, crime-engendering and hence illegal legislation, is
'essential' and 'beneficial' to the people, and its enforcement therefore
absolutely must be upheld by the jury.

To discuss and teach in
any meaningful way the Juror's Duty of Annulment-by-Jury in the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury
requires firstly, familiarity with the strict common law
parameters governing the correct rôle of
judges; secondly, knowledge of the common law-prescribed the
Rights, Duties, Powers and Procedures of jurors; and
thirdly, understanding of the constitutionally-explicit purpose
of Common Law Trial by Jury. These factors form the foundation of the
edifice of Justice that is Trial by Jury, sine qua non.

More essential info on the Common Law:

COMMON LAW
DEFINES 'GUILT' AS MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT.
See Essay EIS#11, Specific
Aspects of Magna Carta, p. 9; attached.

COMMON LAW DEFINES
CRIME AS INJUSTICE.
Ibid. Attached.

THE PEOPLE'S COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY JUSTICE
SYSTEM.

Trial by Jury consists of a specific process in which
the jurors are required to undertake certain functions or duties. These
duties are definitive of Trial by Jury. If the Juror's Duties are not
performed by the Jurors, then Trial by Jury has not taken place. If the
Juror's Duties are in some way obscured from the jurors, denied or
otherwise prevented from occurring, or performed by someone other than the
jurors, then, self-evidently, whatever procedure may have
occurred, it is not Trial by Jury. The onlooker first requires to
know what are the definitive duties of the Juror which comprise
Trial by Jury in order to be in a position to ascertain whether a
procedure is a genuine Trial by Jury or some other performance which only
superficially resembles it.

'Laws' can be, and are, illegal for a variety reasons,
such as their being inequitable [i.e. unfair], or unfounded [not founded
in truth, or, technically incorrect], or prejudiced in favour of one party
to the contravention of the human rights or legal interests of another.
Such tyrannical 'laws' are unlawful.

See the following paragraphs quoted from 'Justice and the
Constitution,' pp. 191+, of THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204. THE REPORT
is endorsed by academics, doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, psychiatry,
homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.), and has a
Foreword written by a Nobel laureate former Official Adviser to U.S.
government:

"In
the governance of men and women, few, if any, matters are of greater
consequence than the diligence and precision with which the judiciary
observes and adheres to the definitive code of Common Law Trial by Jury,
long established for the determination of an accused person's guilt or
innocence."

"All governments, comprised as
they are of human beings, are fallible. Governments are capable of passing
bad or oppressive [i.e. illegal] legislation, and authorising and
organising the enforcement of such bad laws. When Trial by Jury is
disallowed or juries are limited in their rôle to decide guilt or
innocence only on the evidence produced by the state [i.e. government]
prosecutor of whether the accused had broken a law or not, any jury acting
in this restricted way would not be able to protect good fellow citizens
from unjust laws or the oppressions of the state. These 'show trials' are
observed to take place in fascist, communist, and primitive tyrannies of
totalitarian dictatorships, in countries which claim to be 'democratic'.
They are traditionally scorned for the mockery of justice that they are
when compared to the democratic standards of Trial by
Jury."

THE PURPOSE OF
TRIAL BY JURY.

"People who judge
authoritatively what their liberties are, retain all the liberties they
wish to enjoy. This is Liberty. Trial by Jury is a trial by the
People of the country, distinguished from a trial by the government. The
intention of this trial is to enable the People to determine their
liberties; because, if the government determines the People’s liberties,
then government has absolute power over the People; and this is the
definition of despotism."

"In recognition of these immutable facts, Trial by Jury
was adopted by the People as part of 'the law of the land'
[i.e. common law] and installed subsequently by written
constitutional law [Magna Carta; U.S. Constitution, etc.] as that tribunal
which establishes permanently within the domain of the People, as opposed
to the government, supreme judgement by citizen-jurors of the People's
liberties. Simultaneously, by that singular act in Trial by Jury, jurors
(not judges, the government's beholden employees) decide which
behaviour is anti-social, forbidden, of criminal intent and
punishable."

"To a degree achieved by no other constitution,
Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury responds to mankind's unceasing
need: to enforce just laws; to uphold the innocent; to protect minorities;
to nullify arbitrary government; and to reject injustice."

"In practice and by definition, government which denies
its ordinary citizens the right to judge the justice of the laws and the
manner of their enforcement on their fellow citizens at trial, is
a despotism."

"Constitutions and governments which deny the
Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System install constitutional
despotism. Only as long as juries of ordinary
citizens have the final say, government remains the servant, not the
master, of the people."

CHURCHILL'S VIEW.

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into
prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly
to deny him the judgement of his
peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian
government, whether Nazi or
Communist."
Sir Winston Churchill, Author, Chronicler,
Historian, Philosopher, Nobel laureate for Literature;
Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
"...the judgement of pares or
peers [equals]," judicium parium suorum, is also
known as Trial by Jury.
Excerpt of telegram from Cairo to
the U.K. Home Secretary on November the 21st, 1943. Emphases
added.

THE JUROR'S DUTIES IN TRIAL BY JURY.

Wherever Trial by Jury takes place, be it in the U.S.,
the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand and numerous other countries, it
is DEFINITIVE of Trial by Jury that, after swearing to
convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, in finding their Verdict,

the jurors judge:

~on the justice of the law, and annul, by pronouncing the
Not Guilty Verdict, any law or act of enforcement which is deemed
unfair or unjust according to the juror's conscience (i.e. sense of right
and wrong);
~in addition to the facts, and
~on the admissibility of
evidence (evidence not being pre-selected or screened-out by government or
judge and/or prosecutor).

Jurors must judge:

~that the accused acted with
malice aforethought, i.e. mens rea, a premeditated malicious
motive to find guilt ("guilt" cannot be ascribed by
legislation*);
~on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence;
and where guilt is unanimously found,
~on mitigating
circumstances if any (provocation; temptation; incitation); and
~set
the sentence (with regard to its being fit and just).

* There is no moral justice nor political necessity (i.e.
deterrent value) for punishing where there was no mens rea. (In the
case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil
law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for
damages.)
See Democracy Defined Essay EIS#8,
"GUILTY?" OR "NOT GUILTY?" WRONGFUL PROSECUTION; AMNESTY & RESTITUTION.

For jurors not to do the above, or for
someone other than the jurors to make any such decisions, is another
process: call it 'trial-by-someone-else' if you will, or
'trial-by-the-judge' -- but this travesty cannot be defined as
Trial BY JURY.

IN CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY
JURY:

~the jury has the power to call witnesses, advisers and
appoint amicus curiæ;

~the common law rôle of convenors of courts
('judges') is as a convenor and for arranging security; advisory,
inasmuch as this may be requested by the jury, of which advice jurors may
take only what is by them adjudged appropriate; and for the arranging of
re-trials and appeals if necessitated by circumstances (see Gilbert's
History of the Common Pleas, pp. 57 & 70; and Vol. 1 of
Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, p. 277;
etc.);

~the
'judge' has no judicial rôle or authority: this precludes the
possibility of judges inflicting injustices as is so often the case
today. Self-evidently, a person without judicial authority
cannot set 'precedents', make 'case law', 'rulings' on law,
or 'interpretations' of law. Still less can the outpourings of a
person bereft of a judicial position interpret or dictate the law
in any way binding on a Jury. According to common law, the
Jurors try (judge) the case according to the common law
principles and functions. Ascribed by common law, excepting convicts and
lunatics, the functions and rôle of
the 'judge' can be undertaken by any elected or sortition (i.e. randomly)
chosen adult inexpert in the law.

~contempt charges laid on
persons by juries or judges have to be tried as for any crime, that is, by
jury;

~all evidence can be presented, and requires to be considered
for its admissibility by the jurors -- especially if it reveals
partiality, injustice, an unfounded nature, or venality in the law.

THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS
QUO.

Anyone acquainted with the process of law in the United
States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere today, will see how far removed
the practices of courts are from the ideals and legally binding
stipulations of those nations' Constitutions. Today, every single one of
the above requirements definitive of Trial by Jury (including judging on
the facts of the case) is illegally forbidden, interfered with and/or
obstructed by the 'judges'.

Labyrinthine deceits of modern usurpation inhabit the
politicians' statute book, which bears no resemblance and pays no respect
to universal common laws of truth, justice, liberty, and equality before
the law. Common law is inserted into the Constitution to protect the
people from government abuse of power. Common law legally binds government
and controls the government's modus operandi. As distinct from despotism
and barbarism, common law is the definitive basis of civilisation,
democracy and legitimate government.

Q. "When is a judge not a judge?"
A. "When 'the
judge' is not a member of the jury."

Until the Latin-derived word 'juror' was adopted, jurors
were actually called the judges, in recognition of their
rôle. "...the judges, for so the jury were
called..." See p. 55 of Crabbe's History of the English
Law, etc.

In Trial by Jury, the Foreman or woman of the jury is the
principal presiding officer.

THE JUROR'S DUTY IS SIMPLE.

It should be remembered that the Juror's duty is
uncomplicated: 'guilt' of a crime can only be pronounced where the
accused's act was a deliberate, premeditated one of malice
aforethought. Similar judgements are the daily fact of life in
commonplace human interactions. We make such appraisals frequently... "Is
this person behaving in a way that is dishonest or malign?" "Is that
person telling the truth?" "Why are they doing that?" "Are these people
genuine?" (Again, note that in the case of one person injuring another
innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by
Jury award appropriate compensation for damages.)

In the human experience, there are no guarantees that
perfect justice will always be delivered by any system. Organised crime
sometimes intervenes secretly to threaten the lives of judges or jurors
and their families. However, the present distorted system (by which
government deliberately breaches common law in numerous ways), presents
judges as permanent targets vulnerable to intimidation, corruption or
subornment, whereas the common law is superior in producing fair trials as
shown by the following.

(i) Legislators and judges are exposed
to all the temptations of money, fame and power, to induce them
firstly, to overlook and deliberately disregard justice in the
framing, passing, interpreting and enforcing of legislation; and secondly,
to become actively biased between contesting litigants, causing
politicians and judges to sell the rights and interests, and violate the
liberties of the People. Jurors are exposed to none of these
temptations.

(ii) At common law (which is routinely
broken by courts nowadays), with the exceptions mentioned, all adults are
eligible to serve as jurors (no 'property' or other restrictive
'qualifications' are legal). Jurors must be randomly
selected (by lot or chance) to ensure all views amongst the
people are represented in order to protect minorities.

(iii) According to common law (which is
today flouted by the illegal modus operandi and
administration of courts) the jurors are kept unknown to the court
and contesting parties until after they enter the jury-box, from
which time they are strictly segregated without access to or from members
of the public.

(iv) If the Trial is to be fair, it is
essential that it be by a jury of peers, the ordinary citizen's
social equals, not by government or its representatives and employees.
Hence, common law excludes from juries those who would prejudice
proceedings, including:
A.) those who make statutes and
regulations;
B.) those who could gain or benefit from the law or
its enforcement; and
C.) those who are connected in some way with
plaintiff or defendant, their objectivity possibly being compromised.

(v) The plaintiff, defendant and their
counsel may make representations to the jurors (not the judge) against the
inclusion of a particular citizen on the panel of jurors, on the above
grounds, A, B and C. Common law governing jury selection ensures fairness:
the final choice to retain or reject a potential juror is made by
discussions and discreet votes of 'the triers' themselves (the fellow
jurors); never by voir dire of prosecutors or convenors,
i.e. the judges.

(vi) Jurors are not liable to bribery or
intimidation, for they are unknown to the contesting parties until they
come into the jury-box.

(vii) In Constitutional Common Law
Trial by Jury, the verdict of a jury can only be a
Unanimous verdict. Laws of human nature do not permit the
supposition that twelve adult men and women taken indiscriminately from
the mass of the people, will all prove dishonest. A 'majority' of
the jurors is not 'a jury'. This is why guilt can only be pronounced by a
jury unanimous in its verdict.

The common law Principles of Unanimity combined with
Random Selection of Jurors in Trial by Jury were understood and
constitutionally established by King Alfred the Great (lawgiver), 871 -
899, in the following way:

King Alfred had Justice (judge) Cadwine hanged because
Cadwine had a man named Hackwy put to death by hanging, without the
unanimity of the jury of twelve men. In this case, three jurors pronounced
the Not Guilty verdict against nine. Cadwine removed the three and
selected three others who would also pronounce 'guilt'.

Similarly, King Alfred had Justice Frebern hanged,
because Frebern hanged a man called Harpin, when the jurors were still in
doubt as to their verdict. Alfred established that when there is a doubt,
it is in the interests of all people that justice should save rather than
condemn.
See "The Mirror of Justices," compiled and
published by Andrew Horne in Old French. The Mirror was written
within a century after Magna Carta. It contains an account of Alfred’s
acts and judgements, thought to have been originally composed by
him.

(viii) Jurors can hardly gain fame,
power or money by giving erroneous decisions. Their office as juror is
temporary. They know that when they have executed it, they must return to
everyday life and they rely on all their rights being upheld by the
judgements of jurors who will be their successors, and to whom they are an
example.

(ix) This Trial by Jury Justice System
is unique and inimitable: that is, it cannot be equalled by other legal
arrangements. It places a curb on legislation the enforcement of which the
Citizen-Juror adjudges would be unfair and tyrannical; and a Jury ensures
to us -- what no other court does -- that first and
indispensable requisite in a judicial tribunal:
integrity.

(x) The powers of juries not only place
a curb on the powers of legislators and judges, but also imply an
imputation on their integrity, impartiality and trustworthiness. These
are reasons why legislators and judges have
harboured the most intense hatred for juries, and, so fast as they could
do it without alerting the People to the loss of their liberties, have now
destroyed juries' power to judge on justice issues, and with it the Trial
by Jury.

More essential info on the Common Law:

LAWS REQUIRE TO BE
JUST.

COMMON LAW TRIALS BY
JURY DO NOT DRAG ON...

CRIME IS
DIMINISHED.

THE
DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLE.

CONSTITUTIONAL DESPOTISM:
TRIAL-BY-JUDGE.

Current affairs and history relate a chilling litany of
the judiciary's desertion of the principles of equity and justice in
complacent careers of depraved cruel enforcement of massive injustices on
citizens innocent of any crime (no mens rea).

Trial-by-judge is the system which denies the common law
Trial by Jury. Trial-by-judge is the National Socialist (NAZI), Stalinist,
Soviet, fascist and communist system of judicial oppression, by which
primitive tyranny thrives; massive injustices are routinely enforced on
innocent people; and citizens are intentionally put into permanent fear
and servitude.

Apparently 'cultured', judges past and present
nevertheless 'justify' and enforce the most abject of legislation, e.g.
Nürnberg Race Laws; complicity in the establishing of an agenda biased
in favour of particular individuals against the legitimate interests of
others; primitive 'religious' oppressions; massively crime-generating
and thus intrinsically illegal commodity 'prohibitions'; etc. This is
the interminable calamity of governments' trial-by-judge.

Complacent, insouciant, ignorant servile populations of
Westerners, Americans, British, Europeans, New Zealanders, Canadians and
Australians, have allowed antidemocratic politicians to strip them of
their legal protections which are constitutionally established as the
Juror's Powers, Rights and Duties in Trial by Jury. People have permitted
institutionalisation of despotic attitudes. Oppression has taken root and
become widespread even in the former great bastions of democracy.

Malpractices and interventions by modern courts destroy
Trial by Jury (if ever the whim of judges allows some false semblance of
it to take place at all).

"If a juror (or any
citizen) accepts as the law that which the 'judge' states, then that juror
(or citizen) has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a
government employee and has surrendered a power and right that was once
the citizen’s safeguard of liberty."

"The saddest epitaph
which can be carved in memory of vanished liberty is that it was lost
because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there
was time."
These words of uncertain
attribution from Bancroft's History of the U.S. Constitution are worth
repeating for they acknowledge verity.

History and current affairs show that, through their
legislation politicians are wont to invade upon every aspect of
people's lives. In the absence of the protections of Trial by
Jury, the state enforces these obnoxious inclinations to tyranny through
their willing servants: the prosecutors and judges. Trial by Jury embodies
the sole (peaceful) antidote to tyrannical acts of intrusion by
government. Australians would do well to appreciate that without
the mechanism of Trial by Jury up and running, government decides the
people's liberties for them in a state of society known as
despotism...

Today, throughout the formerly
democratic West, Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury is denied
by politicians' illegal antidemocratic 'legislative' contraventions; and,
where it does purport to take place, Trial by Jury is precluded by judges'
unlawful intervention to forbid jurors from judging on equity issues, on
the justice of the law and its enforcement. From this vile seed
despotism is extant, all-pervading and visibly growing.
The courts current unlawful modus operandi is to
facilitate the tyranny manifest in the judiciary's antidemocratic
enforcement of inequitable and venal statutes and regulations, which
otherwise citizen-jurors in the authentic Trial by Jury would emphatically
annul en masse.

The motive behind, and
explanation for, judges' boundless treachery are the same today as they
have always been, and they confirm that the indispensability of Trial by
Jury is eternal: the judiciary is responsible, not to the People, but to
the government; judges are dependent for careers, salaries and by
impeachment, on the legislature: to remain judges, they must
reliably enforce unjust legislation.

To allow these compromised humans to dictate the law,
utterly surrenders all the liberties, rights, property and money of the
People, to the arbitrary will of apostate politicians. Any person who
would propose or support such a system of enslavement and subjection of
the people, suffers from lack of education and knowledge of human
behaviour and political history, or from acute antidemocratic mens
rea (criminal intent).

The infractions by modern judiciaries of universal
natural law, common law, and the strictures of the U.S., the U.K., the
Australian and other Constitutions are epitomised, and the
injustice of today's "justice system" is demonstrated, by judges'
prevaricative misstatement of law (which they are all too fond of
reciting) that "congress/ parliament makes law, and judges enforce it."
Au contraire... A just system is the
only one that is legal (cf. Crime Against
Humanity; ratified U.N.O. Principles; the Nuremberg Precedent; etc.).

Trial-by-the-government-judge has always been
unacceptable to people of probity; viz. the following ruling:

"The jury has an
unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the
instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history
shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to
disregard instructions of the judge."
U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals,
1972.

Compounding their violation of common law
and suffocation of Justice, nowadays, arrant 'judges' do not
even permit defence lawyers to tell juries that it is a definitive and
integral part of the Juror's function to judge the justice of law
enforcement. Thus is Trial by Jury by judges dismembered.
The modern judges have judicably corrupted themselves beyond the pale,
abetting and participating in abject tyranny with their perverted and
inequitable misconstruing and enforcing of money-motivated, criminogenic
(crime-engendering) legislation.

PARAMOUNT ISSUES.

It is paramount to all the issues of liberty and
justice that people learn what the common law
is, rather than accepting the
disinformation inculcated by those who wish to eliminate the supremacy of
the true common law. Common Law is indispensable to the
maintenance of civil peace, the well-being of all the population, and
(where this does not impinge upon the equal rights of others), to the
inalienable right of humans to unmolested tranquillity of existence and
the pursuit of happiness.

Hence, it is of supreme importance that, for their
own benefit, every sane teen and adult comes to understand the common law
and, without compromise, support and ceaselessly campaign for the
restoration of its supremacy.

The straightforward facts, legal definition
and background to common law are briefly explained herein for general
circulation. This education is easily assimilated.
For the purposes of this letter, we have briefly
shown:

(i) what common law is (and is not);
and

(ii) that the Justice System which is
prescribed and defined by Common Law is the only
one which can reliably protect the people and their rights to liberty,
justice, and equality before the law.

In the face of totalitarian despotism, private
ownership of any thing is a fragile right. From innate causes,
all sane humans feel possessive to some degree about material objects
and/or their offspring, kith and kin. Without exception, 'collective'
societies established by whatever means, gestate class systems in which
life-style privileges, a superior modus vivendi and material benefits tend
to accrue primarily to dominant persons and those who provide the
leadership with a surrounding structure of support. This becomes
especially noticeable when housing, goods and food are in limited supply.
That the system of collective ownership and state control is for "the
common good" is a specious delusion promoted by its beneficiaries.

Within the collective society, the homeless
person is forever vulnerable and subject to statist authority. In order to
have full control over citizens, the despot-organised state has first to
deny them the right to private ownership; especially that of owning homes,
property and land. By degrees or sudden force, the state assumes
ownership and control of property for the claimed 'interests' of the
collective. Eventually, each person is designated their accommodation,
which can be retracted from them by the state housing and land authority.
This fact engenders insecurity and exacts obedience from occupants. It
also generates the insidious, permanent temptation to petty tyranny,
corruption and base carnality in state personnel.

In every society wherein collectivism is installed,
significant portions of the population are subjugated, humiliated,
penalised, and placed in a condition of misery and enslavement. That is to
say, by force and fear at the behest of the state, people are denied
justice, equality before the law, and the freedoms which men and women
everywhere recognise as the rights of all humans.

Collectivism is inimical to human nature for it can
only be achieved by brute coercion.

History repeats itself because humans remain
essentially the same. We are subject to inherent survival instincts and
the external forces of existence. It is in the nature of some people to
seek to survive at the cost of the freedoms of others. Today,
Australia is no exception. However, the advance of technology now
provides those few individual families in possession of the global
economic power with the opportunity to exploit it, and bring not just
Australians but most if not all of mankind under their control through the
supreme dictatorship of their one world government: the new
world order.

The political process (of electoral and legislatorial
majority voting) has come to be an apparition obscuring the real source of
government and direction, a covert tyranny which derives from the world
bank owners and controllers of the multi-national
financial-corporate-military-industrial complex. This letter raises with
you the subject of the only peaceful means known to mankind by which
ordinary men and women can responsibly control governments inclined
towards abuse, including that one unseen but not unfelt which operates
from behind-the-scenes. It seems that all the people must be alerted to
the dangers to them of this anti-democratic threat, and educated to the
method by which it will be safely annulled if they choose to implement
it.

Gibbon, the sage, pointed out that although government
confers power, the people alone bestow authority.
The tried and tested legal authority and supreme power of which we
speak enables the people to maintain for themselves all their chosen
liberties, property-ownership and other human rights, and to suppress
utterly and deter great and petty tyranny*.
* Definition. Tyranny is defined as: oppressive rule
administered with injustice; the cruel and arbitrary use of
authority.

Incidentally, Sue,
your observation that law 'dictionaries' are at variance with the
linguistic lexicon is apt. The different editions of law dictionaries also
conflict with each other because legislation follows the
ever-changing whims of politicians. If one relies for the meanings of
words on the linguistic lexicon which is based on the truths of etymology,
semantics, philology and history, one finds that
law 'dictionaries' are hard evidence of politicians'
perversions obstructing the course of justice.

In this issue of terminology as with all
matters, one must never concede to the designs of mendacity. As with
juries, we have to hold fast to the principles of truth and justice and
differentiate between the lawful and the illegitimate works of
legislation.

Politicians know that, in the face of government injustice as
exemplified by the subjugation of the true common law and the peaceful,
just purpose of its Trial by Jury, humans' common law rights can
only be protected by resort to violence, civil war and war.
Hence, politicians, state bureaucrats and the judiciary can
only be serving interests other than the
people's by denying the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice
System.

The case in point exposes mens rea, criminal intent
and malice aforethought in politicians:

In order to execute
their cruel purpose, politicians hope to crush the Common Law Trial by
Jury Justice System insofar as it controls them and
protects the population from injustice by governments. They seek to
replace it with the well-known, ruthless system of injustice, the
trial-by-judge. This renders limitless control to the politicians by which
de facto illegal dispossession and all manner of
barbarity can be inflicted upon the population, eventually making
available the choice housing and land to politicians, statists and their
favoured supporters. This is the system of
so-called collective 'rights' and 'justice' à
la
barbarism of socialism, Stalinism, communism, statism, and fascism; the
primitive tyrannical savagery of arrogant élitists
Socrates and Plato who described his ideal prototypical
'fascist' state in his work,
The Republic, adopted as the official doctrine of Adolf Hitler's
National Socialist (NAZI) Party.

See Democracy
Defined Campaign Philosophy Essay EIS#10, "WE THE
PEOPLE AND THE MATTER OF WORDS."
See
Democracy
Defined Campaign Philosophy Essay EIS#21, "THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW
DICTIONARIES."

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.

The universal experience relates that is
naïve folly to
rely upon those who make laws and those whom they pay to enforce their
laws, also for judgements as to whether those laws be just. No
government ever conceded that its legislation
was unjust, and the Australian Common Law division of the Supreme Court
and the High Court are no exception.

In the matter of land and home ownership as with all
liberties and rights of the people, the courts are beholden to enforce the
dread political manipulations by which the behind-the-scenes
financier-corporate-owners, the money masters' rapacious world government
ambitions are to be realised. This must and can be stopped.

The decisions of common law juries in all causes
(suits-at-law) have the total authority of the people (trial per pais) and
are backed by the full apparatus of enforcement. If one cedes the
sovereign power of the citizen-juror in the common law
Trial by Jury to protect the people from misgovernment and tyranny,
then history shows that there is no limit to the potential for
permanent injustice, robbery, carnality, enslavement, torture and
murder which can be perpetrated in the name of government 'law' enforced
by judges.

For the reasons given, the only courts in which you will
find common law rights respected are those of the Common Law Trial by
Jury, and the duty performed of doing justice and deterrent
retribution to those in government who have infringed and continue to
infract the people's just rule of common law.

Sue,
As you enrolled as a member of the Democracy
Defined Restoration Campaign and have been a regular recipient of
information on the common law and its Trial by Jury since last June, it is
strange to see you currently disseminating disinformation about 'common
law' which aids and abets malicious politicians and those persons who
would dispossess home and property owners. It is also disconcerting that
although you acknowledged receipt, you did not reply to this letter sent
privately to you on the 24th of December. Everyone has a right to know the
truth about the matters which affect their lives, and this issue about
common law is of utmost gravitas.

However, we hope to see that you continuously insert
and serialise the above information about common law and Trial by Jury in
the Flora News; and you exhort property owners to get active and campaign
to their MPs incessantly for Restoration of Common Law Trial by Jury until
it is successfully reimplemented by legislation. We shall be glad to see
your efforts to uphold true common law and campaigning for justice for the
benefit of all Australians. We shall do what we can to assist you in this
education effort, if requested.

As you are a Member of the Democracy Defined Campaign,
let us not tarry or be deflected from the single paramount legal panacea:
RESTORATION of Trial by Jury. A message of primary significance to impart
immediately to Australian homeowners and rights' activists along with all
the above information is as follows:

"Better never to vote at all than vote
for a person who does not make JUSTICE the prime aim of government
by RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of common law Trial
by Jury."

Yours sincerely,
Kenn.

DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

P.S. The important common law
criteria by which jurors ascertain
innocence or 'guilt' can be perused in the Magna Carta Essay; link below.

Kenn d'Oudney.

www.democracydefined.org

"Better never to vote at all than vote for a person who does
not make EQUAL JUSTICE the prime aim of government by
RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of Constitutional
Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury."

Click to read about the authentic
Constitutional Trial by
Jury Justice System.

Kenn d'Oudney is the author of books and
essays including the following:

Kenn d'Oudney est auteur de livres et essais
y compris les suivants:
Kenn d'Oudney ist Autor von Büchern
und Essays einschließlich
der folgenden:

MYTHS
DISPELLED: AN OPEN LETTER TO JAMES MADISON (descendant).

Essay: read it and see for yourself how the Constitution's
Justice System is supposed to work to protect rights, liberty,
property ownership and use, and achieve equal justice for all... and
discover... THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS QUO.

"Hi Kenn:

What a magnificent article! I intend to incorporate parts of it into
my speeches and writings.
Yours in freedom and
justice"
Professor Julian
Heicklen,
Jury
Rights’ Activist;
Coordinator, Tyranny Fighters;
U.S.

"Kenn d'Oudney is a brilliant writer and researcher
when it comes to Democracy and Trial by Jury. The best source of common
law is Kenn d'Oudney."

Dr. John
Wilson,

Jury
Rights’ Activist;
co-Founder & Chairman, Australian Common Law
Party.

"Superb. Should be read in every law
school."
John
Walsh, Barrister-at-Law,
Author;
Constitutional lawyer (U.S. & Australia).

MAGNA CARTA, THE GREAT CHARTER
CONSTITUTION;

freely downloadable
information about pan-European legem terræ common
law, the Law of the Land, whose central tenet and sole justice
system is the all-powerful People's Trial by Jury Courts, defining the
true European and pan-Occidental
Constitution.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

"Thank you for
your excellent work on Magna Carta. What a masterly
exposition."
JOHN GOURIET, Chairman, Defenders
of the Realm; Battle for Britain
Campaign supported by The Duke of Wellington; Edward Fox, OBE,
and Frederick Forsyth,
CBE.

"Kenn,
Your
rebuttal is masterly. Your essay is a very good
read."
ROBIN TILBROOK, Chairman
& Party Leader; English Democrat
Party.

"Thank you so much
for this contribution. It is very much appreciated."
ASHLEY
MOTE, MEP (Member of the European Parliament); Vice-President, Alliance of
Independent Democrats in
Europe.

"Thanks, Kenn. I've circulated
this."

SIMON RICHARDS, Campaign
Director; The Freedom Association; Founded by John Gouriet; the Viscount de L’Isle, VC,
KG, PC; Ross McWhirter and Norris McWhirter,
CBE.

TRIAL BY
JURY: ITS HISTORY, TRUE PURPOSE AND MODERN RELEVANCE ISBN
9781902848723, with endorsements and edited section
authored by U.S. lawyer Lysander Spooner;
http://www.democracydefined.org/2trialbyjury.htm

SRC
Publishing Ltd., London, world distribution by LULU of North Carolina.

THE REPORT, CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND
THE LAW ISBN 9781902848204,
co-authored by Joanna d'Oudney; Foreword by a Nobel laureate former
Official Adviser to the U.S. government; endorsed by a Professor of
Physiology Fellow of the Royal Society, academics, doctors (of a variety
of disciplines) and judges (U.S. & U.K.); 260 large-size
pages;
http://www.democracydefined.org/1report.htm

“You have done a splendid job of producing a comprehensive
summary of the evidence documenting that the prohibition of the
production, sale and use of cannabis is utterly unjustified and produces
many harmful effects. Any impartial person reading your REPORT will almost
certainly end up favouring the re-legalisation of
cannabis.”
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR MILTON FRIEDMAN, former
Economics’ Adviser to U.S. government; Author, video and TV series writer
and presenter; Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution and Peace; Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago.

“You represent a worthy part of the fight in many countries for
the logical and beneficial use of cannabis. I thank you for
that.”
PROFESSOR PATRICK D. WALL, M.D., Author; Professor
of Physiology, UMDS St. Thomas's (Teaching) Hospital, London; Fellow of
the Royal Society; DM, FRCP.

“I did enjoy
reading it. THE REPORT should contribute much.”
THE HON.
JONATHON PORRITT, Bt., former Adviser to U.K. government on Environment;
Author; Founder, Friends of the Earth; TV series writer and
presenter.

SRC Publishing Ltd., London,
world distribution by LULU of
North Carolina.

SO YOU THOUGHT CANNABIS
PROHIBITION HAS NO EFFECT UPON YOU ?

THE REPORT ISBN
9781902848204: Part (chapter) Two  contains the unprecedented
(new) Cannabis Biomass Energy Equation
(CBEE; Modern Uses) which proves the clean-combusting
production-cost-free, i.e., FREE, cannabis
by-product pyrolytic CH3OH is the
immediate non-polluting, renewable, total world replacement
for fossils and uranium, whilst simultaneously significantly
increasing world production of staple seed food (protein-rich; no
relaxant in seed). The CBEE exposes the
bankowner-corporate-government monumental ulterior
motive behind fraudulent prohibition. 'Prohibition' is a venal,
cartel-fabricated subterfuge; a false fuel-energy MONOPOLY.

The CBEE Formulation proffers CH3OH oil-gasoline-type fuel combustion for all power-station,
industrial, land, sea and air transportation and domestic energy supply,
with ZERO net atmospheric increase of CO2; viz. the CBEE thereby simultaneously demonstrates
governments’ mendacity in their claims to wish to reduce carbon
emissions, and proves the “eco” and “carbon taxes” to be
fraudulent: a criminal government imposture completely without
foundation. The misuse of exorbitant, world-economy-depressing
fossils and uranium as ‘fuel’ is potentially catastrophic, legally
and economically unjustifiable, and requires to be prohibited
forthwith.
See
pyrolysis diagrams, photo, equation, etc.

Part Six of THE REPORT, PROHIBITION: THE
PROGENITOR OF CRIME.
"To
cause crime to occur is to be accountable for the crime, morally
and legally. To consent to any measure is to share responsibility
for its results."
Legalised, cannabis grows anywhere: the
benign herb's foliage and flowers come free or at an
insignificant price, but yielding no revenues to government and no profits
to corporations. However, prohibition creates the Black Market:
the Economic Effects of Prohibition (scarcity + enforcement, etc.) augment
"street" value by 3000% plus, making all Black Market associated crime
inevitable. The political commodities' prohibition, the
War on Drugs, rather that is to say, the politicians who pass and the
judiciaries who maintain the legislation engender (cause) and are
culpable for not less than 75 -
80 percent of all crimes (official statistics) throughout the West.

EXONERATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT; Official Empirical
Research; THE REPORT collates the medico-scientific Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of the government-funded clinical studies conducted by
world-respected research and academic institutions into non-toxic,
non-addictive natural herb cannabis (differentiated from pharmaceutical
laboratory toxic product THC). The investigations' empirical
evidence exonerates cannabis from all allegations of 'harm' and
'impairment' (including tests on simulated driving) exempting cannabis
from all legislative criteria of control ('prohibition'). All
citizens persecuted thereunder are due Amnesty and Restitution (as for
other Wrongful Penalisation).

MEDICATION: Efficacious in over 100 adverse
medical conditions (viz. Official Pharmacopoeias) including
applications which are life-saving, preserve eyesight,
Curative and/or Preventive, and with potential cheaply to
replace numerous lines of lucrative but ineffective, debilitating,
addictive, toxic pharmaceuticals, rendering massive financial
government-corporate ulterior revenue and profit
motive (trillions) behind apocryphal prohibition by
perjurious derogation. + Medical Case Histories.

Six Parts (chapters)
include expert documentary, legal, academic, scientific, technical,
medical, economic, social, criminological, philosophical evidence,
and that which is based on grounds of equity, vindicating all private
cultivation, trade, possession and use, and which further exposes perjury
and venality behind prohibition 'legislation', all acts of enforcement
constituting crime per se.

Part Seven, RESTORATION: JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION,
exposes corruption, ineptitude and injustice in the justice process;
examines Law: natural law, supreme secular legem terræ Constitutional common law, treaties, statutes; quotes
presidents, judges, lawyers and chief justices.

THE REPORT is
regularly presented pre-trial by defendants to courts (judges) who
routinely forbid all Findings of Fact, evidence and defences which
"dispute the legality of the law" before the jury. The official
and expert evidence in THE REPORT establishes the apocryphal, illegal
nature of the legislation. THE REPORT quotes legal grounds (national and
international) which demonstrate numerous infractions of laws by the
prohibition legislation, and which show all acts of its enforcement to be
crime per se. All citizens persecuted thereunder are due Amnesty and
Restitution (as for other Wrongful Penalisation). This textbook
demonstrates in the law: injustice, inequity, invalidity, adverse effects,
venal ulterior motive, perjury, fallacious derogation, and the
inherent illegality of law which creates the Black Market and
engenders all associated crime.

The outcomes
of this procedure of presenting THE REPORT as documentary evidence to the
judge have proved beneficial in the extreme for defendants.

WE THE PEOPLE AND THE MATTER
OF WORDS; freely downloadable,
indispensable information for the creation and sustainment of legitimate
government and society;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

THE CONSTITUTION
TREATISE: Why the
d'Estaing ('European') Constitution-Treaty Is the Antithesis of
Democracy ISBN 9781902848747, see website for
endorsements by U.S. & U.K. cognoscenti;
http://www.democracydefined.org/5constitution.htm

"The
d’Oudney analysis is as insightful as it is comprehensive. It will stand
for years to come as the definitive critique of the European Constitution
prepared by Giscard d’Estaing and others. I look forward to sharing the
d’Oudney analysis with my colleagues."
HOWARD PHILLIPS,
Founder, U.S. Constitution Party; three-time presidential nominee;
Chairman, Conservative Caucus.

SRC
Publishing Ltd., London.

THE
PRINCIPAL TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACIES,

An
essay by Kenn d’Oudney.

Educational
Information Series EIS#28.

DEMOCRACY DEFINED: ON THE ETYMOLOGY,
HISTORY AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORD DEMOCRACY; the Sciences of
Etymology, Semantics, Semasiology, and Philology determine whether your
country is a definitive democracy or your government is a
despotism. Viz. The word ‘democracy’ is widely abused
and ‘defined’ incorrectly: Democracy is a state of society realised
neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by
suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by
representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral
voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor
define democracy. This essay summarises the unique signification and
inestimable value to the human race of genuine Constitutional Democracy.

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign.htm#democracy

9-11 TRUTH LINKS COMPENDIUM; exposition with select video analysis & lectures; contributions by
professors, architects, scientists, Federal Aviation Authority experts,
former CIA, FBI, military and government officials, firemen, reporters and
other eye-witnesses present; freely download this Compendium
which serves as an introduction to the subject, and as a source of
additional references for those already familiar with the 9/11 Truth
Movement;

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

IN
PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIANS’ RIGHTS IN GENERAL AND THE RIGHTS OF HOME OWNERS
AND FARMERS IN PARTICULAR.

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW
DICTIONARIES; part of
the contents of a forthcoming book to be published by SRC Publishing. It
is nevertheless, for the time being anyway, downloadable for
free;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

ON REFERENDA AND MAJORITY
RULE; part of the
contents of a forthcoming book downloadable for free;

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

RADIOACTIVITY FROM CROPS FED
WITH PHOSPHATE ‘FERTILISER’ IS THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF
CANCER; some Findings of Fact downloadable for
free, extracted from THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204 (referred to above);

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

CHIEF JUSTICE VAUGHAN'S RULING; on perhaps the most famous
trial in history; Juror's Rights and Duty and the Old Bailey Commemorative
Plaque;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign2.htm#intervention

WHY THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANNOT DEFEND
YOU; consider some of
the judicable breaches of common law and Constitution to which modern
government resorts in order to enforce its inequitable, illegal,
and money-motivated statutes;

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign4.htm#lawyers

Further reading on the
website:

http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The not-for-profit
Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and

UNIVERSAL ADOPTION
of CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.
The Democracy Defined
Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,

doctors (of
jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges ( U.S .
& U.K.).
Join the Campaign ! Download and distribute free posters
and educational pamphlets.

Membership
gratis.