GLOBAL WARMING: THE SCIENTIFIC GREEN SOLUTION TO THIS WORLD CRISIS.   The Constitution Treatise: The legal requirements and responsibilities of governments to uphold citizens' rights.   Links
Become a MEMBER of The DEMOCRACY DEFINED RESTORATION CAMPAIGN. Free Membership privileges.   Spread the message and support the Campaign   DEMOCRACY DEFINED Home Page

Campaign Philosophy Index
(Standard English Spelling)


Old Bailey Law Courts, London.

Illustration. Alfred the Great, 871 - 899; King of the Anglo-Saxons; England’s greatest ruler ľ the only one to earn and deserve the epithet, The Great.
Military Strategist; Leader, with profound gallantry, personally and repeatedly engaged in armed combat; Founder of the defensive shield, the Royal Navy; Conqueror of the Danish and Scandinavian Invasions; Peacemaker and Statesman; elected Monarch who united the English Peoples, instituted the Witan (administrative council); reaffirmed the Sovereignty of the Juror in deciding the law (viz. Unanimity); id est, government of Constitutional Legem TerrŠ Common Law Trial by Jury (cf. demos-kratein; demokratia, definitive democracy: sovereignty of the people to rule through Trial by Jury; the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury); reaffirmed the judicial r˘le of the Jurors in Trial by Jury, with convenors (nowadays misnamed ‘judges’) replaced in their traditional correct functions, having no judicial r˘le, but merely court administration and security duties subordinate to the principal official at Trial by Jury, the Jury’s elected Foreman (or woman); instituted the keeping of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; the Originator and Instigator of the Culture of Universal Literacy; personally translated several literary works from Latin, inluding Boethius’ "The Consolation of Philosophy."
Statue of King Alfred at the historic Capital of the Kingdom of Wessex, Winchester, in Hampshire, England.




ACTIVIST MEMBERS from all walks of life in

is spread worldwide by its members.
Campaign philosophy supported by academics, doctors and judges (U.S. & U.K.). Join in the Campaign by downloading and distributing the free posters and educational pamphlets. Contact us by e-mail today for your free Membership and privileges.


At jury-selection interviews or in questionaires, the educated citizen understands that the choosing of people prejudiced in favour of one party (litigant) or the other, is against the common law fairness of Trial by Jury (which is installed in perpetuity by Constitution; see "The Constitution Treatise" ISBN 9781902848747).

The ostensible purpose of jury selection is to ensure that the Jurors are impartial and fair to both the defence and prosecution in judging on the facts and evidence. It would not be fair, for example, if a guilty dangerous criminal being tried, had friends, family and accomplices within the Jury !

Likewise, it is unfair and called ‘packing a jury’ when the prosecution or court (judge) selects jurors who are predisposed to find guilt, regardless of whether this verdict would be unjust. Yet, prejudiced ‘packing’ takes place in countless cases to produce the verdict desired by the prosecution and government.

As previously noted, ‘laws’ can be, and are, illegal for a variety of 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. Under the Constitutional Trial by Jury, the Juror judges the law and all enforcement of unjust statutes is illegal, requiring annulment.

Moreover, as demonstrated by the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque (see previous webpage), to be found guilty, the accused has to have performed an act with malice aforethought, a criminal intention—not simply to have done something which is ‘prohibited by legislation’ but which is without guilt, is of no criminal intention, and is actually an act innocent of itself.

Today, because so many statutes are unfounded, partial, venal, and infringe against the lawful pursuits, rights and interests of good people, citizens are ‘interviewed’ to exclude them from serving on juries if they admit that they would annul unjust laws. However, the annulment of prosecutions of unjust laws against innocent citizens is a duty of the Juror’s definitive of the Trial by Jury.

It is appropriate for people to be aware that jury packing and ex parte [i.e. one-sided] prejudice by the court comprise an unconstitutional and illegal modus operandi. Accordingly, when the potential juror is confronted by such disgraceful activities, the responsible citizen is duty-bound to take steps to defeat the criminal intentions of the court and prosecution, and redress the balance.

In order to eliminate your serving as a juror who would wish to uphold correct standards by nullifying bad laws and injustices, it is possible that at jury selection interviews you might be asked whether you know about Annulment by Jury or ‘Jury Nullification’; or whether you would acquit the defendant if you did not agree with the law; or whether you think the potential penalties to be unfittingly harsh, and so on.

If you consider such a process of ‘Jury Selection’ to be potentially or definitely prejudicial to the accused’s receiving a fair trial, then you will consider it your moral obligation and legal duty to serve as a juror; and, to this end, to thwart any such interviews or procedures which stand in the way of your becoming a member of a jury.

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body -- working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President; Author of the Declaration of Independence; co-Founder of the Democratic Party.

To see that justice is done and to avoid being excluded from jury service, all citizens are justified in responding at interviews or in questionnaires, with discretion and intelligence, and the prosecution and court have the greatest difficulty discerning, and therefore disqualifying, them. Generally, the less said the better. Do not volunteer your feelings: keep your responses to the very brief polite minimum.

The more enlightened jurors that there are, the more the unjust prosecutions will be annulled. Pass the word on...


In Common Law Trial by Jury, the Verdict of a jury can only be a unanimous verdict. A ‘majority’ is not ‘a jury’. Hence, according to Common Law Trial by Jury there are no ‘majority verdicts’.

However, there are other ineluctable common law reasons why Unanimity is required to pronounce ‘guilt’.

Even a single Juror dissenting from the finding of a guilty verdict is the manifestation of serious doubt; and the criterion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is required for the finding of ‘guilt’ of a crime.

Consider that the Jurors know they are there to protect themselves and society from the villainy of others. As noted (Campaign Philosophy Page One), the common law crime of injustice (i.e., any act of intrinsically malicious motive, mens rea) such as tyranny, murder, rape, bodily harm, mental cruelty, torture, robbery, theft, extortion, arbitrary dispossession, usury, fraud, and so on, receives the universal condemnation of men and women in juries in all times and places.

There is no (good) reason for the invention of ‘majority verdicts’. Even the covert undiscovered felon called to serve on a jury enforces the just laws with alacrity, for not to do so would reveal his insalubrious character to the other jurors with numerous malconsequences to himself. Naturally common law juries continuously enforce the just laws with unanimity because it serves their interest to do so; and only laws which are just are those which should and must be enforced.

The present-day unjust system whereby "hung juries" occur, derives from the obstruction and perversion of the course of justice perpetrated by government and judiciary: the so-called ‘majority’ verdicts are a base, judicable* ploy in corrupt facilitation of the enforcement of inequitable and frequently venal (money-motivated; unlawful) legislation, in an abuse of power to reflect partisan legislatorial-majority interests to the negation of the legitimate rights and interests of others.
Definition. judicable, that which may be tried by jury in a court of law.

Unjust laws and acts of enforcement are crimes per se which require annulment by juries and those responsible for unjust laws and prosecutions require to be Tried by Jury for their crimes (cf. Crime against Humanity; the Nuremberg Precedent, etc.).

The protection of minorities depends absolutely upon the honouring of the sovereignty of every single Juror to decide the Verdict. (It also depends on other matters, such as the Random Selection of Jurors, etc.)

As noted (on Campaign Philosophy Page One), if the governing body imposes any law or regulation which is inconsistent with the People’s sense of justice and fairness, it requires annulment by jurors in Trial by Jury, even by a single juror (unanimity required), who may be part of a minority race or group unfairly discriminated against by the law. In this way, the people protect themselves from injustices, tyranny, crime and potential holocaust. They hold their own rights and liberty in their hands, never conceding them for a moment to those who might seek to gain through arbitrary, despotic government.

Through the Common Law Trial by Jury, sovereignty not only resides with the people as a collective whole, but importantly, it is also embodied ‘divisibly’ with every adult citizen, thereby demonstrating how the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System is the foundation of all just and legitimate government; and Trial by Jury is the definitive, active principle of democracy: [demos-kratein; demokratia:] the people rule.

It should never be forgotten that all the worst crimes of history and of recent years have been and are committed by governments. Moreover, it is a common human failing for persons in authority to acquire in varying degrees the propensity to abuse their position and cause suffering unjustly to fellow men and/or women.

Every citizen and juror has the principal duty and social obligation to resist crime, including those crimes which are visited upon the people by those acting in the name of government. To combat such crime, it is the duty of jurors to judge the legality and justice of every statute and regulation being prosecuted, and likewise to judge each act of enforcement. To this end, common law requires Jurors before trial to receive simple instructions on "malice aforethought," to apprise them of the means by which crime and guilt are recognised and innocence is established, along with the other Duties of Jurors; ref. Page One.

It should be noted that the duty of the common law Juror to judge the justice of the law and annul the enforcement of such law as the juror deems unjust, apocryphal or otherwise unlawful, places common law superior to statute and all other forms of law.

In every case, all law which is enforced but has not been judged on by Jurors in the Common Law Trial by Jury --- such law is potentially tyrannical; the act of its enforcement is always despotic and illegitimate. Such acts of enforcement anywhere are illegal and unlawful; see the Universal Criterion of Justice, Campaign Philosophy Page One.

Nota Bene: (i) A. Annulment by Jury is the proper term (not ‘jury nullification’). Annulment by Jury expresses active authority; a positive action taken by a jury over something that the jury is empowered to annul.

B. By contrast, the words "jury nullification" are linguistically incompetent because such wording expresses the opposite of the meaning intended by the user of the words: for, "jury nullification" first indicates that something is done to a jury; that the jurors are passive recipients of an act of ‘nullification’; namely, that the jury is nullified, null and void. Because use of the unclear, incorrect expression has become quite widespread it is necessary sometimes to explain the proper term, but since the words "jury nullification" convey a meaning quite the opposite of what the user of the words means, the expression should be removed from the Educator’s vocabulary.

(ii) Annulment by Jury describes the beneficial phenomenon which brings justice by saving the innocent from the oppression of unjust prosecutions. The expression ‘jury nullification’ has been invented by people antithetical to Trial by Jury, and subsequently it is spread about by people who do not understand the importance of words and the (subconscious) effect that they can have upon people. To individuals who have not yet been educated on this subject, the term ‘jury nullification’ can set up all sorts of wrong ideas and prejudices which may be difficult to eradicate. In other words, use of the wrong terminology ‘jury nullification’ assists the enemies of the sovereign duty and right of the citizen in Trial by Jury to annul unjust laws and illegal acts of enforcement.

(iii) Note that, in particular, many lawyers and judges like to use the wrong term which suggests that the jury is nullified... For self-interested ulterior motives, these people want to gain a final overthrow of constitution, justice, Trial by Jury and the rule of just law. (Because the wrong expression has become widespread, sometimes in campaign literature one has to add, or use, ‘jury nullification’ to make sure people gather that annulment by jury is actually the phenomenon under discussion.) It is constructive to get people used to hearing the correct term.


Consider that the unjust, venal, crime-engendering, inequitable, inherently illegal statutes extant today; the enforcement of injustices by incompetent or prejudiced judges; and the prosecutions which are unfounded or do not adduce convincing evidence, all these must be emphatically annulled by the Juror (one or more jurors) rendering the Not Guilty Verdict. For Justice to be upheld, the Foreman or Forewoman of the Jury then pronounces to the court the Verdict of Not Guilty.


Yet, in the corrupted, illegal ‘trial’ format seen today, a jury may be said to be ‘hung’ when unanimity cannot be agreed upon, and the government prosecutor may go for new trials in front of different juries until obtaining the government-desired ‘guilty verdict’. Nowadays, only with a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty may the cause not be re-tried.

For the obvious reasons given, ‘majority verdicts’ are illegal: crude contraventions of justice and of legem terrŠ common law.

According to the civilised, constitutional and supreme universal legem terrŠ common law, government may only act against a party, his (or her) goods or person according to, and not more than, the lawful sentence of a jury following Common Law Trial by Jury.

Where a juror cannot in all good conscience find ‘guilt’, the accused must be pronounced Not Guilty. For whatever private reason, or one which may have been debated by the jury in the privacy of the jury room (such as judging on the justice of the law or the act of enforcement; or the lack of conviction produced by the tenuous nature of the evidence, etc.), this Not Guilty Verdict must be returned to the court by the Foreman or woman of the Jury, who, along with all the jurors, should be instructed prior to trial regarding this important matter.

It defeats the entire object of Trial by Jury to have the decision of a sworn juror ‘overruled’ by ‘majorities’ or judges making ‘rulings’. Judges have no judicial authority*, otherwise the Trial is not by Jury. See the explanation and ruling of Chief Justice Vaughan in his recognition of, and accord for, the finding of the Not Guilty Verdict in the famed Old Bailey trial of Mead and Penn, who later was Founder of Pennsylvania. (See page two.)
See explanations on Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy, Page One.



Illustration. Alfred the Great, 871 - 899; King of the Anglo-Saxons; England’s greatest ruler ľ the only one to earn and deserve the epithet, the Great.
Military Strategist; Leader, with profound gallantry, personally and repeatedly engaged in armed combat; Founder of the defensive shield, the Royal Navy; Conqueror of the Danish and Scandinavian Invasions; Peacemaker and Statesman; elected Monarch who united the English Peoples, instituted the Witan (administrative council); reaffirmed the Sovereignty of the Juror in deciding the law (viz. Unanimity); id est, government of Constitutional Legem TerrŠ Common Law Trial by Jury (cf. demos-kratein; demokratia, definitive democracy: sovereignty of the people to rule through Trial by Jury; the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury); reaffirmed the judicial r˘le of the Jurors in Trial by Jury, with convenors (nowadays misnamed ‘judges’) replaced in their traditional correct functions, having no judicial r˘le, but merely court administration and security duties subordinate to the principal official at Trial by Jury, the Jury’s elected Foreman (or woman); instituted the keeping of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; the Originator and Instigator of the Culture of Universal Literacy; personally translated several literary works from Latin, inluding Boethius’ "The Consolation of Philosophy."
Statue of King Alfred at the historic Capital of the Kingdom of Wessex, Winchester, in Hampshire, England.


The Principle of Unanimity was understood, and definitively and constitutionally established by King Alfred the Great 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.
Also see Works, Vol. 2, Chapter 6, by co-author of the U.S. Constitution, Justice James Wilson.

In addition to the absolute requirement of unanimity, from these examples we see that jurors require always to be chosen by lot (chance) from the whole body of adult citizens; and that the selection shall be made in some mode that excludes the possibility of choice on the part of the prosecution and government.

To protect all the People against any government bent on injustice, it is the vital principle of Trial by Jury that government legislation shall be subjected to the judgement of a tribunal taken from the whole people indiscriminately, without any choice by the government, and over which choice the government exercises no control. If government can select jurors, it will select those favourable to its prosecutions and enactments, excluding from juries those whom the law treats unjustly. Exclusion of any men and women from eligibility is an illegal selection of those not excluded.

Juries must be randomly chosen in order that they represent diversity of views amongst the people of the country. The Principle of Unanimity combines with the principles of Random Selection and the principle of Impartiality which forbids the selection of jurors being influenced or made by any officer of the government. Together, these principles protect minorities and groups from the partisans of a potentially oppressive government which seeks to impose unfair laws.

The Common Law Trial by Jury guarantees the universal right of individuals to judge the justice of any law that is to be enforced on the people and their peers, so that arbitrary government and bad law are rejected and innocent liberties are preserved. If the Trial is to be fair, it is essential that it be by a jury of peers, a citizen’s social equals. 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.

The plaintiff, defendant and their counsel may make representations to the jurors against the inclusion of a particular citizen on the panel of jurors, on the above grounds, A, B and C. The common law governing jury selection further ensures fairness: the choice is made by discussions and discreet votes of ‘the triers’ themselves (the fellow jurors); never by prosecutors or convenors, i.e. judges.

Such are reasons and considerations why Guilt can only be pronounced by a jury unanimous in its verdict.


Readers of the above observations (and page one) know the Juror’s Duties, and will understand that good men and women on juries who recognise the unjust laws of arbitrary governance and the unjust acts of enforcement by courts (judges) as the embodiment of crime that they are, refuse to enforce them by annulling the prosecution and finding Not Guilty the persecuted person in the undeserved position of ‘defendant’.

Sometimes these juries receive malicious disparagement from lawyers, judges, journalists and other craven servitors of political despots who instigate, maintain or attempt to enforce such unlawful ‘legislation’. The just, correct Not Guilty verdicts are maligned by the foes of Equal Justice, as "sympathy" or "perverse" verdicts when they are no such thing, and the honourable citizen-jurors who support innocence, justice and humanity are dysphemistically maligned as "rogue jurors" by base characters and crooked personnel.

It is the frustration and malicious motive of the foiled tyrant which gives rise to that deliberately misleading use of language against dutiful citizens who protect the innocent. Citizen-Jurors can never honestly or fairly find the innocent ‘guilty’, regardless of what the oppressive government’s dictates and ‘laws’ may say. So-called ‘guilt’ cannot be found in a person whose acts and motives are devoid of malice aforethought.

As Chief Justice John Vaughan famously pointed out (see page two), not only does the burden of proof rest upon the plaintiff, but the evidence which is the basis for the juror’s final decision is unknown to all people outside the jury-room, or indeed, outside the privacy of the individual juror’s mind. In the absence of definite proof of subornment, no person can respectably dispute the jury’s decision in any particular case. So it must remain if equal justice is to be served.

The term ‘rogue’ appropriately applies to rogue governments and their dastardly servants who verbally intimidate and abuse the best of citizens for their having nobly upheld the defining virtues of civilisation against the cruel barbarity of unjust governments’ Crimes against Humanity.


We sometimes hear from people enquiring about Magna Carta in regard to whether "judicium parium" is Trial by Jury. The following clears it up.

The ‘trial’ which takes place today which people refer to as "trial by jury" is not Trial by Jury at all, for all the duties of the jurors which define the process as being a Trial by Jury, are denied, interfered with and obstructed by the courts. (This is explained and the Juror’s Duties are shown on Campaign Philosophy Page One.)

For example, if the evidence is controlled, pre-selected and arranged by someone other than the jurors, then the outcome or verdict can be predetermined by someone other than the jury; and the process is an illegal masquerade.

In genuine Trial by Jury, the jurors and only the jurors decide on the admissbility of the evidence. It is one of the most serious crimes it is possible to commit, and an immoral act, knowingly to withhold from jurors evidence which, if they saw it, would change the verdict.

Yet, today, jurors are permitted only to consider such evidence as the judge chooses to allow, a process:

(i) in which all evidence is screened out from consideration by the jurors, if it "disputes" the legality of the law, i.e., the validity and effects, the foundation and veracity, the equity or the justice of the law;
(ii) which pre-judges and condemns countless INNOCENT people (by definition, no malice aforethought, no mens rea: NOT GUILTY); and,
(iii) which is a trial-by-judge, not a trial by the jurors, i.e., not Trial by Jury.

It must be said that, for careers and pay, mendacious politicians, lecturers and members of the legal profession participate in or propagate and support (abet) this illegal, one-sided charade by which government replaces Constitutional Trial by Jury. In trying to absolve themselves from their unmitigated criminality, they go out of their way to misinform people that "trial by jury" was "invented" later than the first ratification (of many to date) of Magna Carta in 1215 and therefore "cannot" have been installed by Magna Carta.

As shown on page one, the truth is that Trial by Jury was (and remains) the central tenet and sole legal justice system of the pan-European people’s legem terrŠ common law of the land, extant long before Magna Carta. It was constitutionally* recognised by King Alfred the Great, 871 - 899; and by Emperor Conrad of Germany two centuries before Magna Carta (see Blackstone, 3, p. 350).

The Common Law Trial by Jury, and the strict limits of the r˘le of judges and government in the justice system, were defined and prescribed exactly by the stipulations of the Great Charter. For details, ref. Essay EIS#11, "Specific Aspects of Magna Carta: The Great Charter Constitution," freely downloadable from the Democracy Defined Campaign Material webpage.

*Definitions. 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 control of its government; a constitution can only be amended at the behest, and by the active participation, of the great mass of the people (not by government). 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; and, ‘government’ is comprised of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.


Memorise the information about the premeditated obscuration by lawyers (for it can only be such) of these facts about judicium parium, Trial by Jury, legem terrŠ the common law and Magna Carta, including by author McKechnie, and Reeves, Gneist, Maitland, Pike, et al. Rather than an innocent incorrectness, they must be judged replete of malice aforethought, mens rea, which motivates and gives rise to their self-serving mendacity.

Remember also to view with the most penetrating circumspection absolutely everything which flows from such people, who, in lying about the most fundamental and important facts at the basis of our, and all mankind’s, model Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System, will then promote any beguiling untruth to please their political masters and advance their careers.

It is good for people to know what Magna Carta really does say, because the Great Charter inscribes the timeless, supreme secular morality of legem terrŠ common law of the land at 1215 which derives from the universal natural law and justice, equity; and which measures the legitimacy of government, sine qua non; and formulates mankind’s unique model Trial by Jury Constitutional Justice System.

It was explicitly and precisely to counteract arbitrary (corrupt; tyrannical) government that the protections of Magna Carta, The Great Charter of English Liberties installed "the law of the land," i.e., the European people’s common law justice system, the definitive constitutional criteria of Democracy "in perpetuity" and "for ever." (See Preamble & Articles 61 & 63.)

Legem terrŠ derives from humankind’s universal code of equity, natural law and justice. It remains perpetually, legally in force. No statute or government edict can ever legally supersede legem terrŠ common law.


Governments at all times trend towards the tyranny of the enforcement of laws in which there is no justice. If they do not progress in this, it is because the constitutional, enforceable democratic control by the Trial by Jury stops them, or because they fear provoking mass reaction, rather than some intrinsic ‘virtue’. As if any further evidence in support of this affirmation were necessary, the entirety of human History and Politics proves the point; and, quoted herein, impartial citizens, judges, chief justices, politicians and presidents concur.

Trial by Jury puts the forces of law and order under democratic control at the point of each and every act of enforcement. Trial by Jury makes every citizen serving as a Juror a Safeguard of Justice and Liberty, reinforcing Democracy. Trial by Jury gives a real degree of protection to good citizens who otherwise are always vulnerable to the brutalities of any state when it becomes venal, or deviates from democracy; or, whenever a prosecutor or judge has a tendency to incompetence or unfairness.

The fašade which now replaces Constitutional Trial by Jury, itself demonstrates the unconstitutional character of Western governments, and exposes the illegalities and tyrannical practices routine in process of law within every Western nation today.

By the protections intended under our Constitutions, government may pardon, suspend or moderate sentences; re-trials before a new jury may occur, and appeals take place; but, for every civil, criminal and fiscal instance of accusation, judgement on laws and other citizens’ behaviour is the ordinary citizen’s domain, not that of government. Trial of the accused, not by the government’s employees, but by a Jury of equal fellow citizens (i.e., peers) drawn indiscriminately from the country to have representation of minorities, requiring jurors’ judgement on the law, facts, the admissibility of evidence, the moral intent of the accused, the nature and gravity of the offence, and, with unanimity for condemnation, the fitness of the sentence if any, remains indispensable to, and definitive of, democracy, sine qua non. We forget the lessons of History at our peril.

Knowledge about Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution, of the relevant law and history, combined with comprehension of the nature of Man, produce understanding of how and why the Trial by Jury has been broken down in practice; and of the unconstitutional illegal means by which this devastating dismantlement of Democracy has proceeded: premeditated denial of Trial by Jury’s intended protection of citizens from the enforcement of unjust laws, is the result of unlawful manipulations by government. By the mens rea of great and petty despots undermining citizens’ Trial by Jury, democracy is eroded and eventually utterly ruined. This criminal government activity must be resisted and reversed.

Present-day ruin and loss of Common Law Trial by Jury by the illegal interventions of politicians and judiciary, is symptom and cause of gradual, but terminal, extinction of democracy and the benevolent culture which brought Trial by Jury into being.

The first act of Survival is to become aware: to forestall low motives in politicians and government employees who subvert Trial by Jury, and who thereby destroy the achievements and ascent of our Democratic Fathers.

Without Trial by Jury in place, no dramatic event is required for democracy to be replaced by tyranny: men and women become enslaved by their insouciance to the ambitions, and plight, of others; and by allowing their minds to dwell on distractions. Roman Emperors knew well that sufficient "bread and the games" generally kept populations tranquil and subject to their bloody, capricious rule.

Are wage-slavery and materialism, video-voyeurism, professional ‘sport’ and the owned and controlled mass media, to be the "bread and games" of the Twenty-first Century ? or will good people awaken in time to save Trial by Jury and Western Democracy from the takeover of criminal opportunist arrogation ? No less is at stake. Without Trial by Jury’s curtailment of tyranny, the state permanently offers an arena to the aspiring demagogue. Today, an unelected plutocracy served by self-seeking politicians and an unconscionable judiciary are the reality.

We stand at a similar historical cross-roads to those free Republican Romans whose democratic state at the very height of its power, shortly fell prey to overt autocracy. Unlike them, History gives us the benefit of hindsight. We need not repeat their mistakes. However, in this issue, the majority of the Western population is passive and completely unaware, because people are mentally self-manacled slaves of the newly materialist West. With their minds prepossessed and without a whimper, in the unblissful manipulated servitude of automatons and marionettes, individually, and thus the entire people, capitulates the last turrets of their ascendant culture of millennia, to the enemy within.

Judged by the universally accepted civilised standards of the common law, the West, now bereft of genuine Trial by Jury, is in a state of degenerative ‘free fall’ (see "A Closer Look," in Part Six of THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204). The mass of people will only realise that this was so, too late, on destructive impact if it hits bottom; but inertia can be overcome: the trend may be reversed immediately by re-establishment of particular cultural attitudes and practical procedures, at the core of which is Trial by Jury.

Every aware adult understands the threat to their own security and well-being, and realises the paramount necessity for...



Today, the state education system fails to teach people their most important secular adult duty: that of Juror in Trial by Jury. Hence, the raison d’ŕtre and r˘le of THE DEMOCRACY DEFINED not-for-profit Educational Campaign are revealed. Jurors educated to their duties do not go wheedling to the judge to ask whether he deigns to grant them the right to their own conscience ! and begging ‘permission ’— when it is their legal and moral DUTY to judge the justice of enforcement. In court, they do not cowtow when the judge misinstructs them, or tries to bully, or denies them their Rights and Duty to judge the law... Always remember the example of the upstanding citizens who set the standard for all jurors and trials, in the Penn and Mead case. Ref. The Commemorative Plaque (see Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy Page 2).

It is incumbent upon aware citizens to rectify the criminal status quo: there are countless trials-by-the-judge, i.e., false ‘trials by jury’, which are the modern corrupted activity of misgovernment where jurors do not know, and are not instructed by the judge to do their duty to judge the law, the facts, on the admissibility of evidence, the gravity and nature of the alleged offence, on the moral intent of the accused (i.e., malice aforethought, or innocence), and on the suitability of the sentence, if applicable.

It is encouraging to observe that, in a variety of cases where the evidence against the defendant(s) has been overwhelming and irrefutable, but where the ‘law’ is inequitable, unfounded (the manifestation of ulterior [i.e. covert, illegal] money-motive), and its prosecution an opprobrious disgrace, there are also ACQUITTALS by responsible juries, which are examples of Annulment by Jury. Such acquittals do not receive veracious media coverage pointing out the Jurors’ duty of annulment where appropriate.

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. The People reliably enforce the just laws.

However, if the justice of a law is not evident, and (being part of the law) the sentence of punishment 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. Viz. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, quoted on Campaign Philosophy Page 1. When juries regularly reject (annul) prosecutions of a statute, that statute requires legislative expunction.

Quotation from THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848167:

"Those who undermine Trial by Jury and who do not actively support its Universal Adoption, abet tyranny, crime, and the law of the jungle; they vitiate mankind’s peaceful progress and the compassionate aspirations of human civilisation; they foster inhumanity, promote strife and personify injustice: they are the visible foes of all democratic people."

Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury is the foundation and unique Safeguard of Democracy. This Justice System is indispensable to liberty and the well-being of people everywhere. Trial by Jury is the only constitution worthy of the name.

Click here to read some of the breaches of common law and Constitution to which modern government resorts, in order to enforce its money-motivated inequitable statutes:


ę All rights reserved.