Letter from Democracy Defined

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter from Democracy Defined
« on: July 03, 2015, 08:25:40 PM »
The Home Page of The Democracy Defined Campaign



Media and General Enquiries: [email protected]

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

(Standard English Spelling)


ACTIVIST MEMBERS from all walks of life in

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.).


Dear Ray,


Greetings. We hope you are well.


Thank you for your e-mail. One is obliged to correct Frank's misplaced criticism of our Campaign responses.


Firstly, we utilise the conventional correct translation of the Latin Articles stipulated in Magna Carta, 1215. We do not have our "own take." In the context of common law in 1215, their meaning is unequivocal: they speak for themselves. You have only to read our texts with backing by quotations from the established literary authorities on our Constitution and Common Law to see this is confirmed.


Secondly, when Frank Taylor and members of the legal profession communicate incorrect ideas on this important subject, one is obliged to provide an in-depth reply to explain their incorrectness, to try to prevent misinformation being spread.


Inevitably, the process of correcting people who are deeply at fault, particularly lawyers such as Bunting, Robertson (QC) et al., requires careful, time-consuming precise exposition. Only someone exasperated at having their engrained  incoherence (or ignorance) exposed by such a text or essay would describe the precious information and proof as awkward, pernickety, pedantic and prolix. Corrections to Frank, should not be taken as personal!


That needed to be said, Ray, as you do not know our work, and why would you want to read anything invented; an "own take"! (Frank says: Importantly there is Kenn D'Oudney on Democracy Defined. Kenn is often pernickety, pedantic and prolix. He can be an awkward customer to argue with. But he does read both Latin and Law French and has his own take on the conventional translation of certain articles in the Magna Carta. But a useful and learned source on jury nullification.)

Regarding your interest in Annulment by Jury, there is plenty to read about it provided by this Campaign. Kenn has explained to Frank countless times the principle of liberty, the authentic meaning of the legal term common law, and the Annulment by Jury function (incorrectly referred to by lawyers as 'jury nullification') as they relate to our Constitution, but Frank remains incorrigible.


Here is an example, our previous reply to Frank who asked for comments on his 'eight points':

Frank still insists: "1) Implicitly that liberty is based on a universal principle that what is not forbidden is permitted."

That is not a foundational principle. Further, what you say is self-contradictory because it implies that "liberty" could exist in a country where certain perfectly reasonable activities are forbidden by unjust laws.

Previously explained, The Principle of Liberty was appreciated by our forefathers, and the Athenians of 508/7 BCE by their recognition of exousia (rights). It, and how it is secured are set out in Chapter Two of Democracy Defined ISBN 978-1-902848-24-2, partly quoted here:


"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."

To forbid something, it has to be legally forbidden at Common Law, as adjudged by jurors at a legal Trial by Jury.

[Quote Democracy Defined again.]
"Consider Harlan F. Stone, U.S. Chief Justice 1941-1946, on the Juror’s Duty in the authentic Trial by Jury, from Chapter One, 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; Harvard Law Review.
(Emphases added.)
[Quote ends.]

One of the responders to your e-mail raises the point that the QC was dodgy about Annulment by Jury in the Penn and Mead context. Here is the indispensable straightforward factual information which the QC does not know, or more likely, knows, but does not want it to be known by his superiors that he had made it public... He'd hate to spoil his chances of getting on the bench.

Anyone knowing the real history and background of Trial by Jury can recognise and expose the mendacity now adopted by the legal profession to obliterate legal and constitutional rights and enslave the populace.

Quotation from Democracy Defined, with permission.


Governments and their servitors bent on injustice begin their crimes of perverting and obstructing the course of justice by interfering with the jury and the proper functioning of the Trial by Jury. Illegal statutes of ‘attaint’ dating from as early as the Twelfth Century were from time to time passed and utilised to punish jurors for pronouncing annulment verdicts which displeased government, judges and prosecutors.

Later still, because disinterested jurors are always wont to annul and dismiss unjust prosecutions (to protect themselves from falling prey to similar injustices being inflicted by judges), the Court of Star Chamber was an illegal, unconstitutional court run by the government’s judges evading the Trial by Jury. It was set up to enforce the will of autocratic monarchs over their political opponents and any who disputed governments’ lawless acts. Demonstrating that citizens do find verdicts according to their conscience and convictions, and acquit persons tried under unjust laws and dismissing unjust prosecutions, Attaint and Star Chamber were methods resorted to by tyrants to bypass Trial by Jury. Annulment by Jury is the due and correct activity which comes naturally to men and women as jurors. It is the very process for combating government crime expected of jurors in Trial by Jury and for which Trial by Jury is constitutionally emplaced “in perpetuity” throughout the civilised world.

Common law juries know that they are there to protect themselves and their fellow citizens by enforcing the just laws with unanimity and annulling injustices.

"It cannot be denied that the practice of submitting causes to the decision of twelve men was universal among all the northern tribes (of Europe) from the very remotest antiquity."
Crabbe’s History of the English Law, p. 32.

Governments’ criminal acts of attaint which interfered in the Annulment function of Juries, comprise evidence to the fact that the right and duty of jurors to decide the verdict according to their beliefs and convictions were established in common law Trial by Jury from the earliest times and continuously put into practice.

Note that these issues and events long predate the Penn and Mead trial of 1670. Rather than “establishing” the duty and right of Jurors to decide the verdict according to their convictions (as the wording goes on the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque), in fact, Chief Justice Vaughan’s ruling merely recognised this perpetually established purpose of Trial by Jury—the Juror’s Duty to annul injustices—which was and remains unalterably established in Common Law and is definitive of Trial by Jury.




Never let it be forgotten that throughout the History of the World right up to date, ALL the greatest CRIMES have been and are being perpetrated by, and in the name of, government. Government does not ‘grant’ or ‘bestow’ the right and power to do justice: upholding justice is the inherent duty of every citizen. The universal supreme common law recognises and provides for the fact that the people have an eternal obligation to enforce common law and protect themselves from lawlessness and injustices inflicted by criminals who acquire positions of power or government.

The secular morality of natural law, and of the traditional pan-European Legem Terræ Common Law (expressed in Article 61 of Magna Carta), installs the People in perpetuity as the legal force to police, arrest, indict, try, punish and otherwise obtain redress over wrongdoers acting as, or in the name of, government.


Chief Justice Vaughan’s ruling explains how it is never possible for those outside the jury to ascertain by what private thoughts or evidence a Juror or Jurors may decide that the verdict of Not Guilty is the only one which is just and appropriate. Any law student worth his salt knows this exemplary historic ruling and understands why this must be so. The predictability of verdicts (ref. Chapter One) is one of the beauties of authentic Common Law Trial by Jury. It is this fact which explains why courts (judges) today breach Trial by Jury’s common law governing impartial jury selection (described herein) and go out of their way to ‘select’ jurors (voir dire) who will “produce” the verdict by which government prosecutors can enforce partisan, crime-producing and inequitable legislation.

However, in the European Union, Trial by Jury is denied altogether; a de facto criminal activity by participants in government (soviet executive, the legislatures and judiciary) who devastate democracy, obliterating civilisation in favour of barbaric statist dictatorship. This European Union’s commissars and accomplices culpably initiate the newest gulag state. Government Crimes against Humanity deny Equal Justice and incarcerate multitudes of innocent citizens. N.B. No malice aforethought; no mens rea: Not Guilty...



The Commemorative Plaque,

Old Bailey Law Courts, London.

Photo: Major John Gouriet, 15th/19th Hussars. Chairman, Defenders of the Realm; Battle for Britain Campaign supported by H.G. the Duke of Wellington; Edward Fox, OBE, and Frederick Forsyth, CBE.

At our request, John went to the Old Bailey to get a photo for us of this historic monument: the Plaque commemorating the upholding by Jurors and the Chief Justice, of the Constitutionally-recognised Sovereignty of the Individual Juror.

Thank you, John. We remember you, champion of Liberty and Equal Justice.

The Plaque celebrates Trial by Jury, the only (peaceful) means known to humankind for eliminating crimes, both common, and those committed by government.

See photo on next page.



Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania.

Like the Trial by Jury, this plaque will be removed if modern politicians (dissolute servitors of the bank-owner behind-the-scenes—implacable criminal enemies of the people, of democracy, truth, rights, liberty and justice), have their way.

For ease of reading, here is a transcription of the Plaque:

“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury, Thos (Thomas) Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final Verdict of Not Guilty.”

“The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established “The Right of Juries” to give their Verdict according to their Convictions.”

Jurors do not decide the Verdict simply on whether evidence indicates a person “broke the law.” Quakers Penn and Mead broke the law in letter and spirit in front of very numerous witnesses. The Penn and Mead infraction was knowing and intentional. The facts of the case were known to all: judge, jury and the public. Furthermore, there was no desire in the defendants to deny their brave stand. Their outspoken behaviour at trial indicated the converse. The evidence against them was incontrovertible.

What the defendants disputed was ‘guilt’: that is to say, they were Not Guilty because crime is the committing of an act of injustice with malice aforethought. It is not simply the act of breaking the law, for the unjust law is itself the embodiment of crime and, the upholding or enforcing of any unjust law is a criminal act per se; recognised as such by domestic and international law.

Latterday lawyers’ (and others’) erroneous accounts about this case are intended to undermine the right to, to efface the value of, and to deny the necessity for, Annulment-by-Jury. They evade, or are in ignorance of, the religio-political circumstances surrounding it…

The King was not only Head of State but Head of the Established Protestant Church of England. Throughout Europe and England’s centuries of ‘religious’ wars and strife, the Church was in favour of and intended the most extreme castigation (decapitation or auto-da-fé, i.e., burning alive at the stake) of people such as Quakers, deemed adherents to “heretical religions.” In religious matters, the Church could not be disputed.

For Chief Justice Vaughan to have made an outright declaration or even an allusion to or recognition of the ‘possibility’ that the Jury in the Penn and Mead case could have annulled the prosecution on the grounds that the law was “unjust” would have earned him the executioner’s blade. It also would have set back the cause of religious freedom, which most educated people had at last come to adopt. Yet, in view of firstly, the absolute irrefutability of the evidence; secondly, the defendants’ defiant declamatory demands from the dock for independence of conscience; and thirdly, the intense hostility of the Church to even the slightest dissent, to allow the acquittal to stand was blatantly to confront the injustice and tyranny of the law.

The Chief Justice’s upholding of the acquittal was acknowledged throughout the land and Colonies as a sensational and supremely courageous act, especially given his proximity to the sanguivolent chief representatives of the Church.

By his act, Chief Justice Vaughan upheld the jury’s Duty to acquit regardless of the law or the instructions of the judge, whenever the finding of a verdict of ‘guilty’ would be unjust to the accused. Exemplified by the above well-known instance, when the trial is by jury, the Jury’s Right and Duty to acquit when it perceives that conviction or punishment would be an injustice, supersede the government and court in authority.

This event in particular and the Principle embodied in the Mechanism of Judgement and Annulment by Jury in general, confirm in the minds of the discerning that the pan-European Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury is the finest and only legitimate Justice System ever devised.

The authentic common law Trial by Jury effectively annuls injustice by government, and this explains why it was prescribed and defined by Constitutional law Magna Carta in 1215, and emplaced as the peaceful means of pre-empting* statist injustices and oligarchical rule in both republics and constitutional monarchies. Trial by Jury came to be adopted and was constitutionally installed by numerous countries. For example, in explicit recognition of such universally applicable, secular, timeless, ideal and moral principles of justice, the U.S. Constitution enshrines Trial by Jury as the sole legitimate Justice System for all (non-impeachable) crimes; viz. Article III; Section Two.

*Definition. pre-empt, forestall; take action in order to prevent something anticipated from occurring.


Whenever and wherever the Supreme Power has been in the hands of the People, undemocratic individuals who would seek to take this power for themselves, first wrest it from the Citizen-Jurors and illegally suppress the Trial by Jury. This they do through their willing, beholden henchmen, their employees: the judiciary. The judges overawe, mislead and misinstruct naïve citizen-jurors, denying them their fundamental function and right to judge and do justice. Judges suppress the duty to annul the enforcement of bad laws. In sum, the Justice System is perverted by criminals to serve the interests of criminals.

The Penn and Mead case exemplifies how, for all time, Democracy and civilisation itself rely utterly on ordinary citizens having ultimate control of the Justice System.

Furthermore, the case sets an example for today, not only to Jurors but also to citizens in judicial and magisterial positions in tribunals everywhere: In finding a Verdict, everyone is duty-bound to judge both the justice of the law, and on whether the behaviour of the accused was of mens rea, i.e., malice aforethought; guilt or criminal intention, without which no crime* can have been committed.

*See sections on mens rea, and Crime unalterably defined at common law; Chapter Three.

In the Penn and Mead trial, jurors found not the defendants, but the law wanting—and the enforcement of injustice is always and everywhere an illegal punishable act: cf. Crime Against Humanity; ratified Principles; 12-10-1946; International law; cf. the Nuremberg Precedent.

For Justice to prevail throughout the world, Trial by Jury is universally requisite. It is for the ordinary people at large represented by indiscriminately chosen adult citizens as jurors in Common Law Trial by Jury, to judge the justice of every act of law enforcement in finding the Verdict.


As the paramount democratic Safeguard of the ordinary people against those in government intent on doing injustice, the jury is the only extra-governmental body (i.e., outside of government and its employees) constitutionally-emplaced to judge the law and every act of enforcement. Bearing in mind that no government ever conceded that the laws it enforces could be “unjust,” this makes the jury’s judgement on the justice or otherwise of the law, the only true democratic testing of the law.

“The Jury has the Right to determine both the law and facts.”

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase;

Signatory to the Declaration of Independence.

At this point, one of the many aspects of the infinite superiority of the People’s Courts of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System is established over the crude system of trial-by-judge and enforcement-by-government-judges... Today, felonious judges have reverted to an illegal modus operandi of misinstructing juries to find a ‘verdict’ without the jurors making a judgement as to the law itself, and whether doing so would be unfair to the accused. The need for Restoration is evident.



Jurors are ignorant, subservient and morally wrong if they convict against their conscience or without doing justice—which always involves judging on the justice of the law. Above all, in such an act they strike a blow against democracy and their fellow citizens. They defile the Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System. Consider that there are numerous statutes, the breach of which may occur without any guilt, crime or malice aforethought on the part of the citizen. Whether instructed to do so by the judge or not, whenever a juror convicts a person who, according to the juror’s conscience has not really committed any act with malice aforethought, then that juror commits a moral injustice and a crime at common law. That juror abets the Crime of Malicious Prosecution by the state: a criminal injustice occurs (cf. Crime against Humanity).

If unrestrained by an illegally acquired ‘immunity’ to liability at Trial by Jury, those in power tend to assert as ‘legislation’, their personal inclinations whatever they be, however acquisitive, arbitrary, and illegitimate. It is for this reason that those who agree to abide by the laws, that is to say, the mass of ordinary people, have the absolute duty of judging laws and acts of enforcement, and, where necessary in Trial by Jury, of annulling those which are contrary to the sense of fairness, justice, and conscience of ‘ordinary’ men and women.

To convict someone Not Guilty of any wrongdoing is a most pernicious act. Its repercussions deeply undermine human society. Having once enforced a malicious prosecution successfully, the courts and politicians see no end to the corrupt opportunities which then become available to the corporate and government partnership through endless enforcement of illegal legislation. Small wonder that arbitrary government is so deeply entrenched today, for, throughout the West the Crime of Malicious Prosecution has become, not a rare anomalous mishap, but the courts’ routine malpractice*.

*For evidence of ulterior criminal ends, see THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848211. Synopsis and endorsements given in author's list of publications at the end of this book.


Enforcement of Injustice by Government Personnel Is an Illegal Punishable Act.

At all times, every adult person has the moral responsibility to suppress injustice. Whether committed by private citizens or by the state, every act of injustice is a crime at common law. All government employees are accountable. See ratified Principles, U.N. Resolution, 12-10-1946, as follows.


“Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible and liable to punishment.”


“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.”



“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.”


“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. 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.

Where before jurors swore simply to “do justice, convict the guilty and acquit the innocent,” nowadays, in breach of common law governing Trial by Jury, governments and judiciaries have changed jurors’ terms, requiring them to swear to enforce “the law” as it is interpreted or dictated by the judge to the jury. Jurors are misinstructed that they may not judge upon the law. However, as noted, government is thereby in breach of correct due process and contravenes the duty of the juror to do justice, and denies Trial by Jury itself.*

*See The Juror’s Common Law Oath, Chapter Three; and The Juror’s Duties in Trial by Jury, Chapter One.
Furthermore, jurors acting pursuant to the scurrilous requirements of renegade government or judges and not making judgement as to whether the law or its enforcement would embody injustice to the accused, are in gross breach of natural, common, constitutional and international laws. Their act constitutes a judicable criminal abetment of, and collusion in, tyranny; cf. the Nuremberg Precedent."
[Quote ends.]


Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Kenn's book, Democracy Defined ISBN 978-1-902848-24-2, is due out on Amazon shortly.


Yours sincerely,
Astra d'Oudney.


"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 Juror's Powers in 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:



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.


"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.



NEW! 2015 EDITION THE REPORT, CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW ISBN 9781902848211, 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.);
Softback, 260 large-size pages.

SRC Publishing Ltd., London, available from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk

“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.


“Very readable. It is an important REPORT and I hope it is widely read.”

LESTER GRINSPOON, MD, Official Adviser on Drugs to U.S. government (Clinton Administration), Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard University School of Medicine.
“I am totally amazed at THE REPORT’s quality and overall goodness.”
DR. ANNE BIEZANEK, Authoress; ChB, BSc, MB, MFHom.

SRC Publishing Ltd., London, available from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk


THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848211: 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 macro-cultivation simultaneously significantly increases 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.

"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 a significant proportion 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. *Courts require documentary evidence presented as the published textbook (not copies or e-book).


TRIAL BY JURY: ITS HISTORY, TRUE PURPOSE AND MODERN RELEVANCE ISBN 9781902848723, with endorsements and edited section authored by U.S. lawyer Lysander Spooner;


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


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"
Jury Rights’ Activist;
Coordinator, Tyranny Fighters; U.S.


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

"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.



WE THE PEOPLE AND THE MATTER OF WORDS; freely downloadable, indispensable information for the creation and sustainment of legitimate government and society;






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;


 "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.



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 defines and summarises the unique signification and inestimable value to the human race of genuine Constitutional 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.
Note: The URL addresses of these serious documentaries do change from time to time. If you find the link broken, then paste the TITLE of the video given in our Compendium into YouTube and find the documentary video that way.





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;


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



RADIOACTIVITY FROM AGRICULTURAL CROPS FED WITH PHOSPHATE ‘FERTILISER’ IS THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF CANCER; some Findings of Fact downloadable for free, extracted from THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848211 (referred to above);


CHIEF JUSTICE VAUGHAN'S RULING; on Penn and Mead, perhaps the most famous trial in history; Juror's Rights and Duty and photo of the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque;

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;



Further reading on the website:

The Home Page of The not-for-profit Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and

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.



Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk