• 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
« on: February 19, 2018, 08:35:34 PM »
KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION! Introduction: Treason to our Constitution and at Common Law is explained in this extract which derives from the words and wisdom of our great historical, legal, and constitutional opuses by Gibbon, Palgrave, Millar, Gilbert, Hale, Crabbe, Hallam, Spooner, Coke, Blackstone, Mackintosh, de Thoyras, Stephens, Hume, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Wilson (Justice James), Macaulay et al.  Treason is uncomplicated but, as you would expect, it is very different from the selfinterested notions of ‘treason’ propagated by monarchs and parliamentary despots, and inserted into their statutes.   
Friends, There is indeed judicable High Treason committed by our parliamentarians, judiciary and legal profession; real treason to our People and Constitution—but it is erroneous to quote breach of statutes, which parliament can alter or override at any time. Treason at Common Law and Constitution involves a completely different set of laws.  My heart sinks when I see risible elementary misconceptions about parliament’s statutes being ‘constitutional’ which are then circulated to editors, presenters, politicians and others, thereby claiming grounds for ‘treason’ by Members of Parliament (MP). I can almost hear their sniggers and scornful remarks. Such fallacies persuade no one and entrench the opposition. This ignorance is counterproductive to the cause of straightening out our corrupted legislators—but it’s nothing a little reading won’t remedy!  The following text explains how the claim “parliament is sovereign” is a flagrant misstatement of fact and itself an act of High Treason. Enjoy these extracts from DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto ISBN 978-1902848-26-6. Then forward or print out, staple together and circulate this text to every patriot. Permission is given for this copyright pdf to be copied, quoted and/or forwarded intact showing attribution; author, title & ISBN. © Kenn d’Oudney. Note that statutes never form a ‘constitution’ because, when any new statute or treaty is in conflict with earlier parliamentary legislation, the later or current law simply overrules the earlier one. So, statutes made by parliament are susceptible to being overruled by subsequent parliamentary legislation. Every adult acknowledges these incontrovertible facts if they are aware of the legal difference between a constitution and a statute. Whereas a statute is enacted to facilitate the uncontroversial, day-to-day nuts-and-bolts of administration, a constitution is a permanent set of rules (Articles) which govern the modus operandi of all successive governments.  The fact that statutes are made and can be ‘unmade’ legitimately by parliament applies to every parliamentary Act without exception, including those on Treason, Misprision, Union, Supremacy, Praemunire, the Petition of Right, Bill of Rights, etc., whether or not the statute contains wording from common law.  By contrast, no parliament made Magna Carta, 1215, which expresses legem terræ, the perennial, timeless, supreme Law of the Land (previously mostly unwritten; lex non scripta) which We the People came to inscribe into our Great Charter of English Liberties.  The model, world-respected English Constitution is comprised of legem terræ; the Law of the Land Articles at 1215, also known specifically as “the common law.” 1 It is enforced through the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System, which is itself defined and prescribed within the written text of the Constitution. The People judge, vet, decide (make) and enforce the Law of the Land by judicium; that is, their verdicts, judgements and sentences at Common Law Trial by Jury which thus forms the final, supreme legislature and judicature in the land.  1 See Item VI; Common law, for definition and quotations of textbook authorities mentioned on page 1, Introduction. The 1215 Great Charter Constitution is virtually immutable. This is because legitimate amendment to or repeal of any Article of Magna Carta may be put into effect only by the greatest mass of the total population actively authorising such in a plebiscite, non-participation constituting a refusal, a ‘NO Vote’, in rejection of the plebiscite and proposed amendment. See hereinafter quotations from DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6.   
THE 1215 GREAT CHARTER CONSTITUTION A government, parliament/congress or legislature cannot, by legislative assertions, recite itself into constitutional power. The following ten enumerated points at common law with accompanying texts explain how this is so. LEGAL DEFINITIONS UNALTERABLE AT COMMON LAW. Definition and Related Commentary  (I) A constitution A constitution is a code of laws and customs (legem terræ; the Law of the Land; common law; the Trial by Jury Justice System) 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, (II) government A 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. (III) statute law As distinct from supreme Constitutional customary Common Law, statute law is written law set down by a governing legislature. WHY THE 1215 GREAT CHARTER IS NOT A “STATUTE.” Although the Great Charter Constitution is sometimes ‘referred’ to as a ‘statute’, this is either from ignorance, the casual misapplication of terms, or, in the case of government functionaries and lawyers, specious disinformation.  The Great Charter is first and foremost a Constitutional inscription of the English (and other) People’s common law of the land at 1215 C.E., which excludes all laws made by monarchs and government. It comprises the Supreme Law which governs government and is more properly called The Constitution. The 1215 Great Charter is the People’s perennial Compact with their chosen incumbent heads of state: it is NOT a statute. Statutes made by parliament or congress do not bind subsequent administrations, which may decide to amend or repeal a statute; but no parliament made Magna Carta. The Great Charter was made by the people directly with the head of state, explicitly to preclude tyranny, injustice and misgovernance by binding all heads of state and the modus operandi of government for all time under judicium parium, the Trial by Jury justice system of legem terræ, the Law of the Land. The laws of parliament cannot change any aspect of, or impinge in any way upon the Common Law at 1215; the perpetual binding dictates of the Great Charter. Through the supreme authority of the People’s Trial by Jury Courts, the 1215 Great Charter Constitution governs government.  Common Law is constitutional in the sense that it provides the peaceful legal means of the Trial by Jury for deciding all the People’s laws, liberties and causes (see section on Common Law to follow). Concerning specifically the Articles of Common Law in Magna Carta, this timeless common law per se has never been a government statute. Whereas government may enact and repeal statutes, it does not choose the People’s Constitution. It cannot go back in time to change the strictures of the 1215 Great Charter or the universally-applicable natural, timeless secular Common Law. Statutory parliamentary attempts to intervene in Magna Carta of 1215 are ultra vires; it is beyond the legal power or scope of parliament or congress to change the genuine
Common Law. That the judiciary, parliament or congress should ever even so much as contemplate suppressing any aspect of Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury by which it protects the population from crime by government, deserves to be treated as a judicable act of mens rea; criminal intent. The upholding by the citizens of the Constitutional Trial by Jury and its rule of law is a Common Law Duty emplaced by Article 61 of Magna Carta (Chapter Five).   One must differentiate between the Constitutional Great Charter of 1215 and the increasingly abridged purported “editions” of “Magna Carta” subsequently introduced and ratified (passed) by governments and parliaments, and signed into law by heads of state, which then are “statutes!”—and which are not legem terræ, the Law of the Land, the people’s common law: The 1215 Great Charter Constitution. With the familiar behaviour of many a tyranny, illegal governments repeatedly seek to obliterate the constraints of justice and constitutional common law upon them. These restrictions on government are brought into being by the People having access to justice through their courtroom prosecutions at Constitutional Trial by Jury. The government crime of evading the binding constitutional limits to government power has sought to obscure itself under judicial pretensions of “immunity from prosecution” and criminal parliamentary statutory “repeal” of parts of Magna Carta of 1215, daring to treat the Charter as if it had been a “statute” of government. Yet, a reading of the stipulations and terms of the 1215 Great Charter demonstrates self-evidently its status of perpetual and permanent legal and moral supremacy. Any activity purporting to alter the Constitutional Sovereignty of the Juror in the Common Law Trial by Jury is an act of malice aforethought, mens rea, which treasonously undermines the Justice System. The governments’ versions purporting to be “Magna Carta” have all been mutilated by statutory and thus invalid abridgement and interventions; viz. e.g., 1225, 1297, 1830 and so on to date. Our Constitution is further contravened by anti-Constitutional, illegitimate legislation: EU and UN treaties; the Uniform Commercial Code, etc. At common law, these are all treasonous political acts leading, as we shall see, to an inegalitarian social status quo, negation of the Trial by Jury and calamitous results to the vast majority of the population (Chapter Six). Restoration, that is, the defining, prescribing and re-implementation of Common Law Trial by Jury as the sole legal Justice System for all cases, criminal, civil and fiscal, formed the core purpose and single most important aspect of Magna Carta, 1215.  Remembering that it is the People, as distinct from government, who choose their Constitution, it is easy to see why implementing the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System too, is the main preoccupation and substance of all Western Constitutions; the U.S., the Australian, the Canadian, the New Zealand, and so on. In the most profound sense, the West and all legitimate societies have but One Constitution: it is judicium parium, the Trial by Jury of Magna Carta, 1215. THE IMMACULATE UNTOUCHABLE CONSTITUTION. Some of the statutes which were passed by parliaments to curtail the excesses of dictatorial monarchs have come to be apocryphally referred to as “constitutional” (such as the Petition of Right ratified by both houses in 1628, the Bill of Rights, 1689). Their good intentions and meritorious contents earned these laws the respect of significant personages and support amongst the people, but, because these are statutes and can be legitimately superseded by the legislature, they do not legally and correctly qualify as Constitutional.  The Declaration of Right does not qualify as Constitutional. Unlike the 1215 Great Charter, the Declaration was not signed and sealed by the head of state. It does not constitute a compact (contract) with anyone. The subsequent Bill of Rights derived from the Declaration is a statute and, of course, not Constitutional. By contrast with the untouchable 1215 Constitution, the laws and by-laws framed by the bureaucracy, passed by the parliament or legislature and enacted by the head of
state, which are referred to as statutes, acts and regulations, may be amended by the legislature. Successive parliaments and congresses have the power to repeal or amend any statute they please—but nevertheless the head of state, all government personnel and statutes remain absolutely subject to the Common Law of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution and the due process of Common Law Trial by Jury.  Trial by Jury places the power to judge, annul or enforce the law with the Jurors, removing such power from government. However, government has the task and duty to pass just legislation in an equitable administration of the uncontroversial ‘nuts and bolts’ of dayto-day life. This is, of course, provided government operates legitimately; always within the legal and lawful parameters set by the Constitution in regard to the correct operation of the Constitutional Justice System, the Common Law Trial by Jury. In this latter regard, over recent generations, government has utterly obstructed the Grand Principle of Equal Justice embodied as the constitutional role of Trial by Jury to regulate society 1.  1 Co-author of the U.S. Constitution, ardent supporter of the Trial by Jury Justice System and Fourth President, lawyer James Madison exhorted the people to “regulate society” by expressing ultimate authority through their common law juries; see The Publius Fallacy of Number Ten. By their illegal interventions and usurpations of the proper Trial by Jury, successive governments have completely removed the people’s constitutional legal empowerment to protect themselves peacefully from criminal misgovernance. In its single most important aspect affecting the entire populace, de facto, individual politicians and judges have abused their position and arbitrarily abolished the Constitution. Injustice flourishes today: the functionaries, personnel and departments are treasonous and culpable. Constitutionally, through Trial by Jury the People have sovereignty over the head of state (Article 61) and all the persons in and employed by government whomsoever they be. Parliament and government are but the servants and employees of the People; the taxpayers. Government may confer power but the esteem of the people can alone bestow authority. (IV) Tyranny [Textbook abbreviated here. KD.] (V) Sovereignty Distinction must be drawn between the words sovereign and sovereignty. A monarch may be denoted ‘sovereign’ but the constitutionally-bound (or symbolic) monarch explicitly cedes sovereignty, id est, the making and enforcing of the laws, to others, specifically through the Common Law Trial by Jury; viz. Articles 24, 39, 40 and 61, etc. Definition. Sovereignty, pre-eminence; the supreme and independent power expressed through the making and enforcing of the laws. THE FOLLOWING FIVE FACETS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY BESTOW SOVEREIGNTY ON THE CITIZENS IN THE JURY. Firstly, the Common Law Trial by Jury is prescribed by the 1215 Great Charter Constitution as the one and only legitimate justice system for all causes. See translation and Common Law explanation of Article 39 in section: There Is No ‘get-out clause’ in Magna Carta. Secondly, Unanimity is requisite to find a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt to protect innocent individuals and minorities. (There is neither moral justice nor political necessity, i.e., deterrent value, for punishing where there was no malice aforethought, 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 sections on ‘Annulment by Jury,’ ‘Annulment by Jury as Crime Prevention,’ ‘The Illegal Majority ‘Verdict’ and ‘Hung Jury,’ ‘The Meaning behind the Dysphemism ‘Rogue Juror,’ and the following, ‘The Divisibility of Sovereignty.’ Also see section on King Alfred the Great regarding condemnation of judges who interfere, tamper, in the Trial by Jury.
Thirdly, each individual Juror has power to annul the prosecution by finding the accused Not Guilty without obligation to disclose any reason for doing so. See exemplification of this given by the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque re the Penn and Mead Trial by Jury and, in finding the Verdict, the Chief Justice’s Ruling on the Jury’s independent power over the law and the directions of the judge. Also see the statement of President John Adams, lawyer, in Chapter One. Also see US v Moylan; and ref. the DC Court of Appeals Ruling. Fourthly, having sworn to “do justice” (see Common Law Juror’s Oath; VIII; The Justice System), it is axiomatic* that authoritative judgement on the justice and legitimacy of the law which is being processed for enforcement at Trial by Jury is a specific Constitutional Duty binding on the Jurors. See following section on ‘The Justice System.’ The modern government-altered jurors’ ‘oaths’ are illegitimate on numerous grounds, and inequitably ex parte [one-sided, prejudiced; with a bias]. Also see section on Juror’s Duties re judging on the admissibility of evidence. *Definition. axiomatic, adjective, self-evident; accepted fact (law); unquestionable. Fifthly, whenever the law itself is unjust the act of its enforcement is crime per se. For a juror not to annul in those circumstances is the criminal act of abetment of the crime of Malicious Prosecution. Jurors absolutely must judge the law. It is the duty of the jurors to ensure that unjust ‘law’ is struck down and the accused tried thereunder is pronounced Not Guilty. This is the dutiful act of Annulment by Jury; a principal duty of the jurors necessitated in the preclusion of the crime of tyranny. The annulment function is intrinsic to and definitive of Trial by Jury. Jurors are there to stop crime in all its manifestations. This fifth point serves to explain firstly, why Common Law and Constitution assign the crime of High Treason to all acts which attenuate the sovereign authority of the juror; secondly, why King Alfred the Great hanged judges who interfered, tampered, in the due process of Common Law Trial by Jury (see as follows); and thirdly, why, for the slightest infringement of Magna Carta, the perpetual Sentence of Curse and Excommunication was prescribed by the lords spiritual, assisted by monarch and lords temporal 1. 1 See Magna Carta, Chapter Five.  REGARDING THE DIVISIBILITY OF SOVEREIGNTY: If the elected 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 required1), who may be part of a minority race or group unfairly discriminated against by the law2. In this manner, through the 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. Trial by Jury is thereby the active principle of democracy: the people rule 3.  1 At Common Law, Unanimity is requisite to convict beyond a reasonable doubt: there is no ‘hung jury’ and no ‘majority verdict’—a ‘majority’ is not a jury. See Chapter Three for related information. 2 See Chapter One for Common Law disqualification from Jury Service of individuals or groups who adopt a thesis of mendacity (perjury; taqiyya, kitman, sharia) to promote or promulgate their interests.  3 Hellenic Greece of the Constitution of government by Trial by Jury received from the Athenians the defining epithet, demokratia; Democracy. See Chapter One. Whether a society is a monarchy, a theocracy or a republic, what converts it from a despotism (a dictatorial, uncivilised state) to a democracy (the civilised state with Trial by Jury operating) is the instalment and implementation of the Trial by Jury through which the people rule. (The word democracy does not replace the word republic. Of course, the republic remains a republic; but it is both definitively and constitutionally a democratic republic.) Where the society implements Trial by Jury with all its common law stipulations and criteria which exact conformity to the principles of equal justice, then the society WHAT IS TREASON AT CONSTITUTION AND COMMON LAW?
is a democracy. This is as opposed to a totalitarian monarchy, republic or theocracy wherein the dominant government personnel iniquitously suppress the people’s right to the Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System. “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. Excerpt of telegram from Cairo to the U.K. Home Secretary on November the 21st, 1943. See Second World War Volumes. Emphases added. Judicium parium, the Judgement of Social-Equals (pares, peers) in the 1215 Great Charter Constitution is also known as the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System (or for short, Trial by Jury; proper noun; capitalised).  (VI) Common law Common Law is the term given to the code of laws and customs mentioned in above Item (I), legem terræ; the Law of the Land; the Trial by Jury Justice System, inscribed as Articles of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution, Magna Carta (see refs., quotations and attribution to follow). Common Law is made (decided) from judicium (the judgement; verdicts and sentences) of Jurors in judicium parium, the Trial by Jury, the Judgement of Pares (parium, social-equals or peers). Trial by Jury is the sole legal justice system for all causes (lawsuits) of Legem Terræ, the secular, pan-European and pan-Occidental, timeless, universally applicable Common Law, also known as, the Law of the Land (see VII; The Law of the Land). AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES CONFIRMING WHAT COMMON LAW IS. Here are some references confirming the common law is legem terræ and vice versa. Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Justice of England: “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.
Sir Edward Coke (Chief Justice): “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. *Re. ‘statute’, see, Common Law Is Never ‘extinct’ or ‘lost’; Magna Carta. 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 (the government) was bound and sworn.” Preface to 2 Coke’s Institutes, p. 3. THE GOVERNMENT’S COUNTERFEIT ‘COMMON LAW’. Confirmed by the above authorities, genuine common law must be differentiated from that which modern government has corrupted by legislation; a counterfeit 1 which is “common law” in name only. Whereas statutes may contain common law, as the authorities quoted show, common law itself does not include any statutes made by government; nor ‘precedents’ or decisions (stare decisis) made by judges. 1 See section entitled, ‘The Malign Ruse,’ regarding government/legal profession tergiversation and disinformation about common law. REAL COMMON LAW POLICES SOCIETY. Common law governs and “polices” all law, for, to judge the law, i.e., its legality, fairness, validity, applicability, and legal meaning (interpretation), the jurors are the legal judges prescribed by constitution and common law. For example, see the following: “This position” (that the matter of law was decided by the justices [judges], 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.” Sir Jeffrey 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. See TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True Purpose and Modern Relevance, by d’Oudney & Spooner, ISBN 9781902848723. See the constitutional, historical and law tomes of Blackstone, Crabbe, Palgrave, Kelham, Mackintosh, Millar, Coke, Gilbert, Hume, Turner, Hallam, Stewart, Hale, et al. THE COMMON LAW ‘RULES’: IT DEMANDS JUSTICE IN STATUTES. The above authorities show that legem terræ, the common law of the land specified in Article 39 of Magna Carta, was the long-established common, fundamental, supreme law of the land by which the monarchs and their governments were bound by their oaths at coronation and divers other occasions (ref. Kelham, Hale, Hallam, Millar et al.; see the chapter on Magna Carta). Definition. rule of law, the epithet, ‘rule of law’ refers to rule by means of the Trial by Jury; the form of government in which the sovereign supreme power is vested in the people to govern through Trial by Jury, to vet, judge, interpret, decide (make), and enforce the law; the people rule, cf. definitive democracy; see etymology, etc.; Chapter One.
At no time then, previously or since has legem terræ itself included any laws enacted by a monarch or rulings of government’s judges. That is to say, common law contains no statutes or rulings of government, whereas, quite the other way around, statutes may observe and contain statements of, or derived from, common law. Indeed, that degree of fairness and justice demanded by common law must be plainly inherent in a statute if it is to receive the unanimous approbation needed for its enforcement from a randomly selected jury of peers instructed and sworn “to do justice.”* *See section in Chapter One on the Natural Origin of Common Law; its predating organised religions; and ‘The Following Five Facets of Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Bestow Sovereignty on the Citizens in the Jury,’ and ref. to the Juror’s Oath which follows. Naturally, rule derives from sovereignty. One can safely observe, without meaningful contradiction, that few statutes made today would receive such wholehearted approval and unanimous support from the people (see ‘The Workings and Results of Trial by Jury’; Chapter One). Criminal misgovernance is the order of the day, as it was in John’s reign. Justice measures government and the latter is found wanting. A priori, the ascertainment by Jury of a statute’s legitimacy before every act of its enforcement may be visited upon a citizen’s person, goods or property, is, and must always remain, the constitutional mandate… THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE: All the acts and edicts of government and the behaviour of convenors (judges) must forever be subject to the circumspection, judgement and authority of the Sovereign Jurors in Common Law Trial by Jury. Magna Carta put the then already long-established tenets of common law into writing. It was a last peaceful response to the invasive Norman monarchs’ general usurpations which had led finally to John’s reign of terror. The 1215 Great Charter was drawn up to remove from governments, for all time, any and all power to tyrannise.  A reading of the Articles themselves demonstrates that the document’s authors were righteously preoccupied with installing the underpinning principles of equal justice and secular morality to protect all folk equally from crime and injustice. Readers unacquainted as yet with the contents and intent of the 1215 Great Charter’s Articles of Constitution will, of course, conclude this for themselves anyway after having read the Constitution’s Articles of Common Law; ref. Chapter on Magna Carta. Everyone, bonded citizens included (i.e., labourers who were ‘contracted’ employees with advantageous perquisites, tied cottages; allotments; privileges and provisions), such as churls, cottars, serfs* and villeins (villagers; men and women) including all the very humblest and poorest, all citizens were guaranteed the protections of Trial by Jury cost-free for private causes, prosecutions and defence (ref. Articles 20, 36 and 40). The people’s courts designated as county, hundred, courtsbaron and leet were extant, available and active countrywide 1. 1 See, ‘The Trial by Jury Courts Prior and Subsequent to Magna Carta,’ Chapter Six.  *There were no slaves in the feudal system. Far from it. Contrary to the incorrectness sometimes seen, serfs were not slaves. The status of bonded serfs is set out in the Chapter on Magna Carta.  THE JUSTICE MECHANISM CREATES COMMON LAW AND VICE VERSA. It is important to apprehend that, although Common Law can be written approximately, it is not ‘a written law’. That law which is written down and enacted by parliaments and congresses becomes a statute: as such, it is not ‘common law’. Indeed, it is one of the Juror’s Duties definitive of Trial by Jury to judge the justice and legitimacy of those laws which governments write down and seek to enforce on
people. Likewise, the judiciary is an arm of government. Whatever a judge ‘rules’, it is an act of and by government. It is not ‘common law’. Common law is lex non scripta, or, the People’s permanent, unalterable supreme unwritten Law and Customs included in the early Coronation Oaths, eventually first codified (written down) by King Alfred (871-899). Subsequently, it appeared in the rare Charters. It was not until the 1215 Great Charter that the entire mechanism of the Trial by Jury Justice System—which itself was both formed by, and, as we shall see, the origin of, the common law—was set out in detail. With Trial by Jury as its focus, common law in Magna Carta forms what we today call a Constitution because (amongst many other reasons), the Great Charter was explicitly created to preclude repressive and arbitrary government from the realm forever.  Trial by Jury was prescribed as a constitution with the intention of transferring for all time the power and responsibility for the enforcement of the laws to the people as citizen-jurors at Common Law Trial by Jury.  The Great Charter was worded as a perpetual binding agreement between the people and whomsoever came to comprise their chosen administrative government. All persons within government must constrain their activities to remain within the Charter’s stipulations, subject to the Trial by Jury Justice System. So, since the Fifteenth Day of June in 1215, no head of state may realistically or rationally consider him or herself “not bound” by the Great Charter Common Law Constitution. Given a moment’s reflection, Americans, Australians, Canadians and many other folk will realise that this code naturally applies to their heads of state also, because these populations adopted the Common Law Trial by Jury as their Constitutional Justice System. It is an ironical providential curiosity that Trial by Jury is both the origin and yet itself the very creation of, the people’s inspired common law of the land, legem terræ. In greatest contrast with government-made statute law, common law is ordained by our Constitution to be created by the people through their decisions (judicium; the judgements, verdicts and sentences) on all matters in dispute. Common Law Trial by Jury is the hub from which all the outreaching spokes of juries’ decisions spread and protect democracy; government of, for and by the people.  Administrative government requires the overt public assent of the people as expressed by the verdict of the jury before a person is dispossessed or punished. Juries protect themselves and their fellow citizens from common criminals and prevent the crimes of arbitrary and corrupt government from occurring by making all persons equal before the law. This denies government the means of enforcing statutory injustices through trial-by-judge. (VII) The Law of the Land. The term the Law of the Land (Legem Terræ in Magna Carta) relates to the traditional pan-European protection afforded to the whole population by itself, for the purpose of eliminating and deterring crimes in general, and crimes by government against (the) people in particular. The central doctrine and sole justice system of the Law of the Land is the Common Law Trial by Jury. Note: terræ is pronounced terry, the ‘æ’ as in Cæsar, seize. The word terræ is Latin for “of the land.” Legem is the accusative Latin form; lex terræ is the synonymous nominative form. Note that Legem Terræ, the Law of the Land, categorically excludes all statutes, laws and regulations made by government, and judges’ precedents (stare decisis).  Politicians are frequently heard nowadays referring incorrectly to their political statutes as, “the law of the land” out of ignorance or, more likely, to obscure the real meaning and utmost significance of the term. The historical, legal, Constitutional fact is that the term the Law of the Land uniquely relates to the Common Law which is
inscribed as the Articles of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution, including and especially those which prescribe and define the Trial by Jury. It is through Juries’ decisions following the process of Trial by Jury that the people’s common law is continuously made and expressed. It is legitimately fulfilled by enforcement of judicium, juries’ judgement, verdicts and sentences.  The common people’s protection derives from the Trial by Jury by which the folk are responsibly empowered through the court justice system with ultimate control over wayward government. Articles Thirty-Six, Forty and Sixty-One guarantee the right to file Plaint and Prosecute cost-free at Trial by Jury. Article Sixty-One also renders all government persons liable to prosecution. The Constitution sets out the parameters of the only legitimate justice system, defining it by timeless principles, inscribing it as the Constitution’s Articles of Law and quashing any tyrannical tendencies in politicians, judges and government employees at all levels. That is to say, legem terræ, the Common Law of the Land Articles prescribed by the Constitution, responsibly empower the folk to police their society, regulate and govern government, and prevail over all statutes.  The constitutional rule of law cannot legitimately be ignored, evaded, amended or superseded by government, politicians, parliament, congress or courts. Juries’ decisions at Trial by Jury are legal, binding and constitutional. They supersede, judge, interpret, administer and rule over all the measures of administrative governments, heads of state and all decisions of government-appointed judges (again, viz. Article 61—about which more later). Infractions of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution by government and/or government personnel and employees are specifically denoted punishable at the behest of the People through the Constitutional Trial by Jury (see Chapter Five). Legem Terræ Trial by Jury provides the people with protection through the jurors’ power to judge the justice of politicians’ and bureaucrats’ measures of finance and law. The people judge the very legality of their government, when necessary overseeing and scrutinising the issuance of currency and credit; condemning Usury (all money-lending-at-interest) and Fractional Reserve Lending (fraud at common law). Common Law criminalises government borrowing at interest, and banks’ (bank-owners’) lending at interest. Constitutional Restoration retroactively eliminates the ‘national debt’ at a stroke*. *See Chapters Five, Magna Carta, and Six, ‘Traitors to the People’, for further information. The juror’s power is temporary and limited to the context of the current process for which the randomly selected citizen has been empanelled; but the jury has the power to protract proceedings, authorise investigations and amicus curiæ, issue subpoenas, remand to custody, and, if the jury deems it necessary, hold on for as long as it needs or takes.  Naturally, the people’s common law of the land requires open government, and all that is implied by that statement. Funds taken from the people’s economy which are to be spent by government may, on the order of juries, require to be frozen, audited and accounted for at any time. Taxpayers, citizen contributors to the cost of government, have absolute justification and power through Juries, and at any time may prosecute and judge the motives and actions of those who wield power. Petit Juries may instigate investigations of government personnel, taxation laws, and trial courts (judges). As one would expect of a system designed to preclude misgovernance, the Law of the Land prescribes that particular justice system by which government prosecutions of arbitrary statutes can be annulled and/or redressed* by the jury. Trial by Jury also provides the means for the entire expunction of unwanted statutes from the roll 1.  1 See the *Counter Plaint and Two Ways to Equal Justice in Chapter Four.  The (common) Law of the Land is the legal means by which the people are obliged to police their own society by administering and dispensing justice through
Trial by Jury. (The incontestable ethical and experiential reasons at common law as to why judges and government may not set the sentence are explained in the Chapter on Specific Aspects of Magna Carta.) [Textbook extract abbreviated here. KD.] (VIII) The Justice System and The Common Law Juror’s Oath (IX) Crime (A) (IX) Crime (B) (IX) Crime (C) (X) Treason Treason is any act adjudged to undermine or be in conflict with the People’s Absolute Sovereignty ordained by the Constitution of the People. Sovereignty is specifically embodied in and exercised through implementation of the Trial by Jury in accord with the Constitutional Common Law of the Land; see Items (V) Sovereignty; (VI) Common Law.  Common Law and Constitution assign the Crime of High Treason to all acts which attenuate or attempt to attenuate the sovereign authority of the Juror. It is to commit high treason against the people to be implicated in any act which undermines the juror’s sovereignty; or denies or attempts to deny (the right to) the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System for any Plaint and cost-free private prosecution (of whomsoever) through a cost-free suit-at-law (Articles 36, 39, 40, 61, etc.); or, for any citizen’s defence. WHY PRE-TRIAL EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTION OF JURORS ARE BINDING ON CONVENORS (JUDGES) AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION. The Juror’s Duty Is to Pre-Empt Tyranny, Crime and Injustice. Whatever the judge’s motives, the judge is wrong not to inform jurors of their Right and Duty to do justice: For example, in the State of Georgia v. Brailsford, a supreme court forfeiture trial, the facts having been ascertained, Chief Justice John Jay instructed jurors that it remained only for them to judge the law itself, saying: “The Jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” U.S. Chief Justice John Jay; Supreme Court; Georgia v. Brailsford. Upon pain of punishment, it is incumbent upon convenors (judges) to apprise the jurors of their straightforward duties, including annulment, before trial. It is likewise incumbent on participating defence and prosecuting counsel to ensure that jurors have been thus educated on annulment. This is because, for these aforementioned judges and lawyers not to do so constitutes their premeditated participation in and promotion of a pretence instead of a real Trial by Jury (high treason); and is, for each such participating individual, the personal commission of a premeditated criminal act. This latter is the case because not to instruct jurors before the trial about the duty to annul has the potential to result in undue penalisation of an innocent person. Jurors cannot be expected to know that Trial by Jury definitively demands they exercise their duty of judging the law and accordingly annulling enforcement of unjust laws. This judgement of the juror’s is an essential component of Common Law Trial by Jury and Democracy in order to protect innocent citizens from injustices at the hands of government judges and arbitrary legislation. Therefore, unless jurors are briefed about it before trial, the act by officers of the court of denying jurors this knowledge is the treasonous act of subversion of the authentic Trial by Jury itself.  For judges and lawyers to withhold or be party to the act of withholding the instruction of jurors to judge the law—along with their other duties—is knowingly to participate in a subterfuge which replaces the genuine Trial by Jury 1. This is the commission of an act of injustice with malice aforethought; definitively a crime at Common Law. For members of the legal profession to receive remuneration whilst committing the aforesaid acts gravely compounds their felony. Moreover, such remuneration posits an incriminating venal motive behind the legal profession’s abandonment of honour and integrity whenever they participate in unconstitutional false ‘trials by jury’, ‘processes’; and trial-by-judge. At this point, one should prompt
readers to give consideration as to what the lawyer’s motivation must be as to why he or she would commit, and be party to, such a cruel courtroom act perpetrated on trusting, innocent fellow citizens...? 1 See The Juror’s Duties; Chapter One. Whenever the defendant claims injustice in the law or its enforcement, it must be brought to the jury’s attention; and the admissibility of the defence arguments and evidence is decided on by the jurors. One of the principal rules of natural justice expressed as the Articles of Common Law inscribed into Magna Carta, is that the Jurors judge on all aspects of the case over which they preside. For example, they and they alone decide on the admissibility of evidence (a vital function denied them today). Unless it is the jurors who judge on every aspect of evidence in each and every trial, they are not in a position to decide the verdict or the sentence; and the ‘process’ would not be a legal trial.  For the best of reasons, government and judiciary categorically cannot set sentences in any case, and merely have power to commute, i.e., lessen, not increase, sentences. (The reasons for this aspect of the common law are explained in the chapter on Magna Carta.) Yet today, as a juror, expect the judge to forbid you from judging on equity, fairness and justice. Instead, judges instruct jurors to “uphold the law” regardless; and not to allow conscience, their opinion of the law, or a defendant’s motives, to affect their decision. One can speculate why judges contravene the Constitution and civilised standards and do not inform jurors of their constitutional, legal and moral obligations: i.e., the Jurors’ Right and Duty to judge the justice of law enforcement; why judges misinstruct jurors that they are ‘not permitted’ to judge the law; and why judges decide what evidence may be heard in court, ruling out evidence which exonerates the accused if it ‘disputes’ the legality of the law, and preventing juries from reviewing all evidence and deciding on its admissibility... 1 — disrespect for citizens’ ability to make fair judgements? — the judge is the willing servant of antidemocratic oppressive government? — unwillingness to part with his or her power to prejudice the verdict and produce the outcome desired by the judge himself or by his or her political masters? It is no coincidence that crime has increased in proportion to the degree that citizens’ power as jurors to judge the law has been lost to ‘judges’. Nowadays, but few of the masters of crime and hardened real criminals are publicly known; still less are they caught, tried and imprisoned. Paradoxically and in a grotesque irony, as a result of government judges’ enforcing corrupt legislation (which honest jurors properly educated to their duties should and would annul), there is the highest per capita rate of incarceration of the population in the history of the U.S. and U.K. It causes prisons to be filled with harmless people completely innocent of any malice or ‘crime’ 2. 1 & 2 See THE REPORT by K. d’Oudney & J. d’Oudney, ISBN 9781902848211. The Great Charter prescribed Trial by Jury for all lawsuits. To infringe in the smallest way upon the provisions of Magna Carta was considered by the participating clergy to warrant extreme punishment, namely, Excommunication, internal exile; at that time a lifethreatening condition. It would seem such Church powers are today defunct; nevertheless, the historic permanent Execration is a demonstration of the esteem inspired in people by this timeless Trial by Jury Constitution. Details follow… First of all, see below the response of King Alfred the Great (lawmaker) to judges’ treason at common law by their illegitimate interventions in the judicial aspects of Trial by Jury (which are, naturally, solely the responsibility of the jurors). The jurors are the judges. The convenor, nowadays confusingly referred to as ‘judge’, has an administrative, not judicial, role (see the section entitled, An Irrevocable Principle Recognised by Common Law in Regard to Judges; Chapter One). See next page.
Alfred, 871 - 899; King of the Anglo-Saxons; England’s greatest ruler—the only one to earn and deserve the epithet, The Great. Military Strategist; Leader, with profound gallantry, personally and repeatedly engaged in the van of armed combat; Founder of the defensive shield, the Royal Navy; Conqueror of the Danish and Scandinavian Invasions; Peacemaker and Statesman; elected Monarch who united England, instituted the Witan (administrative council); reaffirmed the Sovereignty of the Juror in deciding the law (viz. Unanimity); id est, government of Constitutional Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury (cf. demos-kratein; demokratia, the people rule through Trial by Jury; the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government by Trial by Jury); reaffirmed the judicial role of the Jurors in Trial by Jury, with convenors (nowadays misnamed ‘judges’) returned to their traditional correct functions, having no judicial role but merely court administration, security duties and subordinate to the principal official at Trial by Jury, i.e., the Jury’s elected Foreman (or today, woman); the originator and instigator of the culture of universal literacy; personally translated several literary works from Latin, including Boethius’ “The Consolation of Philosophy.” Statue of King Alfred at the historic Capital of the Kingdom of Wessex, Winchester, in Hampshire, England. Treason (cont.) THE PRINCIPLE OF UNANIMITY. 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 Chapter Six, Vol. 2, ‘Works,’ by Justice James Wilson, co-author of the U.S. Constitution.   
THE UNENDING STRUGGLE AGAINST THE ENEMY WITHIN. If at any time, albeit for an instant, the supreme power is removed from or ceded by the people, and the power is acquired by, or delegated to, a group consisting of less than all the People, then the democratic state has ceased to exist: an undemocratic government, that is, a dictatorship, has assumed its place. The Trial by Jury-based democratic society of the Hellenic ideal was implemented all over the world by peoples of republics and constitutionally-controlled (symbolic) monarchies—but democracy has repeatedly suffered destruction by the countervailing incursions of oppressors who treasonously brought about the annihilation of “equal justice for all.” This massive crime is accomplished simply by suppression of the sovereignty of the juror, de facto thereby illegally abolishing Constitutional Trial by Jury itself. Stealthily, the enemy of the people has again today taken away the jury’s supreme power and is obliterating Western Civilisation from within, without a whimper from the silent majority who have literally everything to lose in terms of life, love, liberty, heritage and personal property from the act by governments of the denial of Trial by Jury. THE PARADIGM OF PERFIDY: THE TREASON ACT OF 1351. Observe the irony in the fact that the statute known as the Treason Act of 1351 is itself the very paradigm, the classic example, of treason. For their own benefit, supporters of equal justice and all right-thinking men and women must learn to recognise and effectively resist real treason in all its guises. The Constitution provides for the absolute necessity of citizens always being able to use the Trial by Jury to protect themselves from injustices being inflicted by unjust government statutes enforced through the courts. Citizens achieve this by charging and prosecuting government functionaries and employees—attack being the correct, effective form of defence in this instance; ref. Chapter Four. As with all other crimes, the Crime of Treason is only legitimately determined, tried and sentenced by the jurors at Trial by Jury. For all time, the 1215 Great Charter Constitution restored the juror’s sovereignty and the duty of juries to do justice: to decide the laws, issues and sentences.  The Treason Act, like many another, is in flagrant breach of the letter and spirit of Magna Carta. Amongst other reasons, it is because the statute bestows power of sentencing, including capital punishment, on government, as distinct from juries. In this treasonous legislation, the head of state and government give to themselves wholly unwarranted, illegal immunity from potential indictment at Trial by Jury by dissenting citizens, because dissent (i.e., political or social criticism) can be designated by government as being “treasonous.” Government judges then misinstruct juries to apply “the law.”  The statute feloniously turns the citizens’ indispensable protections and just causes into “treason.” This Treason Act is similar to the current impermissible U.K. Official Secrets Act which is likewise repugnant to the Constitution. The latter Act illegally spurns just causes and makes important revelations about government misbehaviour (‘whistleblowing’) into ‘crimes’. At constitutional common law, it is a crime per se (Misprision) not to expose impropriety by government employees.  The government ‘trial’ excludes facts and exonerative evidence when it pleases; breaches the Constitution; obstructs the course of justice; invents faux (pronounced fo) ‘crimes’; and eliminates all dispute of the legality of law and acts of its enforcement. The entire purpose of natural law, the common law and the Constitution—which together can be denoted The Cause of Equal Justice and Liberty—is thwarted by this and countless other illegal government statutes. Rather than protecting all the people equally from crime by government employees, the Treason Act protects the person of the incumbent head of state and government functionaries. This statute was enacted by Edward the Third, subsequently modified, and government asserts that it remains ‘in force’.
The Treason Act treasonously prescribes the sentence for high treason (originally, that of hanging, drawing and quartering). All legislative acts prescribing or controlling sentences are repugnant to the Constitution and rendered null and void (see ethical and legal reasons explained in the Magna Carta Chapter). According to Common Law, their enforcement is crime per se, for they infringe upon the sovereignty of the juror to decide the law in each case, which includes the sentence. See the Magna Carta Chapter for common law proofs that the Jury, not the judge or government, sets the sentence. Such treasonous statutes intentionally overthrow the Constitution and democracy. They terrorise instead of protecting the populace. They encourage authoritarianism in its primitive atrocity at all levels of government. They erect an impenetrable barricade behind which de facto criminals within government machinate with impunity. They treat We the People as lesser mortals than government employees. They induce an attitude of ‘thuggery’ in police, vented against the vulnerable, unprotected general public. It is repeated all too often nowadays in scenes re-enacting vicious acts perpetrated upon local civil populations; modern events which recall King John’s unpardonable government enforcers-for-money; mercenaries. In the same way as the Court of Star Chamber and the statutes of Attaint severely punished jurors for finding verdicts which displeased the judge and government (generally torture and dispossession), this old “Treason” statute maintained today is a blatant example of crude absolutism at work. Instead of administrative government working within the Constitution and upholding the principles of justice, such contumacious legislation premeditatedly seeks to return the status quo to its intense illegality extant under John’s criminal misrule. Immunity from prosecution gives government carte blanche to misappropriate, dictate, tax, incarcerate, intimidate and carnally oppress without restraint. This is criminality embodied as the fascist or the “gulag state.” Today, such authoritarianism suppresses great swathes of the human population. Anti-democratic government has improperly assumed powers expressly prohibited it by the Constitution. Of course, since John, with insensible exceptions such as monarchs Charles the First (beheaded) and James the Second (dethroned), autocrats have generally known not to oppress and fleece the population but by subtle degrees, to avoid enflaming and uniting too great a proportion of the people against them at any one time. Folks are always slow to resist injustice inflicted upon others. The situation today is similar to that attained by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. The modern decline and degeneration of the West are exacerbated and accelerated by the muchexploited distractions of state and corporate-derived anti-Constitutional miseducation which is propagandised through all the wholly owned-and-controlled outlets of the mass mainstream media. This treason is committed by paid participants, editors, reporters, commentators, presenters, et al., who are in varying but serious degrees culpable for that anti-democratic crime at Common Law. All the innumerable statutes which infringe the 1215 Great Charter Constitution are due annulment and obliteration. Government must be held within the legal boundary ascribed it by the Constitution and abide by people’s decisions at Trial by Jury. The sovereignty of the juror and thus the people must be upheld at all costs. Twenty-First Century tyranny anew must be exposed, rooted out and annihilated. CICERO AND THE ENEMY WITHIN. Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 – 43 BCE, was a philosopher, statesman, sage, a master of rhetoric and prose, and a lawyer. Widely considered one of Rome’s greatest authors, his prolific works are extant. Let us heed his warning and take appropriate action.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, and heard in the very halls of government itself—for the traitor appears not a traitor: He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and puts on their face and arguments. He appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, working secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city. He infects the body politic until it can resist no longer. A murderer is less to fear.” To whom and for which acts might the term treason now be applied? Viewed and judged in the clarifying light of the unalterable strictures, criteria and standards of the Common Law and Constitution, those persons and their accomplices who are adjudged guilty of breaching the aforesaid supreme code with malice aforethought are political actors. Evidently, persons implicated in treason and breach of the Constitution are deserving of the Trial and Judgement of their Peers. The traitor is dangerous but only for as long as his or her deeds are not perceived to be what they really are: a major crime against the common good. So, how does one distinguish treason and treachery from innocent but misguided intentions? The answer is that the Supreme Law as expressed by our Common Law Constitution provides us with the straightforward mechanisms of Trial by Jury judicature by which to accuse (indict), prosecute, measure, judge and punish any person’s malicious acts.  Jefferson deemed impeachment as ineffective as a scare-crow! In a letter about the judiciary to one A. Coray, he made a telling observation: “In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (See ME15:486; 1823) Definitive Common Law Articles 24, 36, 39, 40 and 61 do indeed hold head of state and all men and women within or outside government liable for their actions and answerable to ‘ordinary’ citizens’ cost-free private prosecutions at Trial by Jury. This is the principal reason for government and its servitors’ illegitimate refusal to acknowledge and submit to our Common Law 1215 Magna Carta Constitution. PROSECUTION ON INDICTMENT. The justice system of common law (the 1215 Great Charter) prescribes Trial by Jury for private, cost-free prosecutions on indictment* simply by lodging a formal public charge or plaint at the local court. There is no other trial or justice system which is legitimate; ref. Common Law Articles 24, 36, 39, 40, 61, etc., explained in Chapter Five.  *Definition. indictment, a formal charge or accusation of a crime; from Anglo-Norman French enditement; from Middle English inditement. Accordingly, the head of state, judges and legislature cannot legally prevent the private plaint or indictment of whomsoever from proceeding to Trial by Jury. Yet these cost-free private prosecutions—the only avenues to achieving a uniform state of equal justice—are today feloniously obstructed by government. The real Trial by Jury is no more. Such are the evil, duplicitous ways of the scheming crooks in government and the legal profession. Once again, we see Magna Carta is utterly vindicated and full Constitutional Restoration imperative; viz. The Restoration Amendment.  [Quote ends from DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6.] I hope this text is helpful to patriots. Implied criticism of those confused and spreading misinformation about our immaculate Constitution is constructive and should be taken in the spirit of amity and solidarity with which it is intended.  Kenn d’Oudney.   
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: FRONT COVER

« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 08:38:05 PM by the leveller »

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk