• 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4120
  • +75/-0
« on: March 27, 2018, 08:42:08 PM »
KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION ! To spread the word, forward this pdf and/or printout and circulate it and share on your social networks. FLAWS OF THE 1689 BILL OF RIGHTS REVEALED: THE BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, REPUGNANT AND VOID. In order to come to an appreciation of the ways in which the Bill of Rights is constitutionally repugnant and void, it is first necessary to know and understand the purpose and workings of those supreme, indispensable definitive elements of the English (cf. British) Common Law Constitution which the Bill contravenes. These contents are itemised below, and the specific infringements by the Bill are explained in the text which follows.  CONTENTS 1. The Bill of Rights Contravenes Common Law (the 1215 Great Charter’s) Stipulations on Equal Justice.  2. The Coronation Compact: Usurpation (treason) by “The Estates” and modern Parliaments. ~~~~~~♦~~~~~~ 
Photo: The defunct 1688 Declaration of Right is pictured on the frontispiece.
Introduction. The supremacy and permanence of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution Magna Carta are recognised by the 1689 Bill of Rights. That is to say, according to the wording of the Bill itself, the stipulations and requirements of the legal Rule of Law regarding the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System (prescribed and defined by the Articles of Common Law which comprise the text of the Great Charter) remain in “full force and effect in law.”  This text explains aspects of sovereignty, the 1215 Constitution, the Common Law, the Coronation Oath and governance, an appreciation of which is essential to understanding the cardinal issues apropos of the 1689 Bill of Rights. All societies govern (rule) through their justice system. The power to punish carries with it ALL power. The role of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System is paramount over all considerations within the worldrespected, permanent (virtually immutable) English and British 1215 Constitution. Failure by individuals to learn about, and thus to know, the esoteric implications of the protective Powers, Procedures, Rights and Duty of the CitizenJuror in the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury has resulted in their confused, unfitting support for the anti-democratic, illegal 1689 Bill of Rights.  The newly selected heads of state, William, Prince of Orange, and his wife Mary, daughter of the previous monarch James the Second, rejected signing the ‘Declaration’, preferring instead that parliament present William with a statute for his accession. No signature, no compact! (contract). The unsigned Declaration of Right is not binding on anybody and, self-evidently, not ‘constitutional’.  However, as shown hereinafter, the 1689 Bill of Rights statute, which was derived from the Declaration, is on many grounds, anti-constitutional, illegitimate, treasonous, repugnant, void and abrogate.  “Judicium parium is the sole peaceful means known to humankind by which the rights of the weakest innocent citizen prevail over a massive and potentially oppressive state power.”  — Quotation from DEMOCRACY DEFINED, The Manifesto ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6. ~~~~~~♦~~~~~~
PART ONE Are You a Freeperson or Slave? T IS DEFINITIVE of a civilised society that government recognises as legal, the right of the people to live free from tyranny and enslavement: that is, tyranny and government oppression are recognised as illegal. To deter government which might have criminal objectives, this freedom requires to be secured by the threat of and when necessary the use of legal force. If no legal right exists to uphold liberty and resist illegal oppression from government and its employees, then liberty itself is not legal. If the law does not recognise and support the legal right of the people to resist lawlessness and oppression by anyone, including government, then justice and liberty are denied. A government which judges for itself which laws are to be enforced, will impose all of those laws it chooses. However, some or all of its measures may be contrary to the legitimate interests and liberty of citizens. For this reason, it is necessary to have a tribunal independent of government, with power over government, to judge between the government’s enforcement of laws and those people who would resist such laws. The tribunal must be comprised of the people of the country at large who it represents, on whom the laws are to be enforced, for the purpose of ascertaining which laws are justly enforceable on the people, and which are to be annulled and expunged. Such a unique tribunal is the Trial by Jury. A government bent on injustice will always commit such offences as it pleases, and act tyrannically—unless it is faced with the fully effective deterrent of authorised legal resistance. To preserve civil peace, justice, liberty and uphold a legal rule of law, the Trial by Jury tribunals of the People require the full forces of law and order at their disposal. If government denies Trial by Jury, that is, if juries are forbidden from judging between the government’s laws and those citizens who disobey or resist the oppressions of government, then government has absolute power, and the people are ‘legally’ enslaved by government. The general population thus subjected may not decide their rights and liberties for themselves, and are known to the law as slaves. As with many slaves past and present, by demonstrations of courage they might to some degree hold back their overlords and state officials who are their masters, but they are nonetheless slaves under the law. In this situation, the people have no power to judge peacefully over what they perceive to be criminal actions by government. Such government has the power to decide exactly what a person can say, do or be. The life, liberty, and property of every citizen are entirely in the hands and at the disposal of the statist politicians in power. A government which can enforce its laws without appealing for consent from a tribunal which represents the people on whom the laws are to be enforced, is an absolute government dictatorship and is not accountable to the people. It can perpetuate its power and commit atrocities at its pleasure. Trial by Jury was emplaced precisely to counter such abhorrence. Following implementation of Trial by Jury, government cannot execute any laws by punishing violators unless it first receives consent of “the country,” that is, the people, through a unanimous jury. Thus, Trial by Jury protects all people equally, and in a democracy the people at all times keep their liberties in their own hands, never surrendering them to government even for a moment. — … DEMOCRACY DEFINED, The Manifesto. I
THE “ESTATES OF ENGLAND,” THE LORDS AND “COMMONS.” To understand why and how the 1689 Bill of Rights was a treasonous, tragic event in British History, it is helpful first to know the motives and purpose of those who were compilers of the document. The Bill of Rights was put together by members of a small, rich, self-interested oligarchical clique who called themselves the “Estates of England.”  The “Estates” was purportedly a two-tier system but it actually consisted of only the titled bishops, archbishops and nobility combined as one lordly estate on one hand, with an élite upper class so-called “commons” comprising the second party. I say so-called with irony because the nomenclature “commons” was a misnomer. The “commons” of the Estates of England at 1689 and earlier is not to be confused with the latterday members of the House of Commons freely elected by universal adult suffrage since 1928. This ‘commons’ in 1689 consisted of upper-class, male, propertyowning rich gentry who were ‘commoners’ in name only because they happened not to have an hereditary peerage. Apart from that, the appellation ceased to apply.  An opportunity was presented by the monarchical installation of a deposed dictatorial monarch’s cloistered daughter and a new imported head of state naïve to the traditions and supremacy of English Common Law. Seizing it, the “Estates” knowingly set about scripting the suppression of the protective workings of the Common Law Constitution. William, the Dutch Prince of Orange, and his wife Mary, whose autocratic father had fallen into perilous disfavour and fled the country, were neither knowledgeable, nor in a position to dispute the Estates’ provisions in the Bill of Rights. Not only did the Bill illegally impinge upon William’s Coronation Oath but it also stifled the democratic vox populi (voice). It  utterly suppressed the greater part of the population’s access to the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System which provided commoners with the indispensable constitutionally-emplaced liberties (inherent rights) of Equal Justice. That the Estates was de facto a single, self-interested, political power-grabbing group is shown by reading the terms of statutes which the Estates had enacted down the centuries, such as those of Attaint (which enabled judges to torture and dispossess members of juries who found Not Guilty Verdicts against the preference of the monarch or the judge); and those statutes which introduced wealth and property “qualifications” which excluded the greatest mass of the People from being selected and represented on Juries. As despotic devices devised by the “Estates,” such tragic and treasonous statutes came to include the 1689 Bill of Rights and to gestate and entrench the divisive, squalid English “class system.”  The two tiers of the “Estates” formed the familiar two Houses of Parliament, but for centuries the upper class “commons” remained an unrepresentative institution.  In the mediaeval and pre-industrial, early-modern era, England was an agrarian society. Generally, the population did not own housing or land. Most of all property and housing was held “tied” to the owners and tenants of land, and in that era, gold and silver coinage was a rare commodity. Accumulation of wealth was beyond the reach of most folk. Cultivation of the expansive areas of unowned common land—the commoners’ free allotments—was the people’s essential countrywide productive resource which provided security, market trade and barter, some farthings and pennies for a puny income, but, most importantly, precluded famine amongst the ‘non-moneyed’. However, the oligarchical gentry had their eyes on the commoners’ common land… 
In a gross act of treason, the Estates sought, through the Bill of Rights, to establish ‘sovereignty’ for themselves over the People and the head of state. SOVEREIGNTY AND ANNULMENT BY JURY. Magna Carta 1215 had (re-)installed Judicium Parium “for all time,” the Common Law’s mechanism by which the Sovereignty of the People is both theoretically and pragmatically established. That is, the famous Articles of Common Law in the Great Charter Constitution recognised the natural and legal Sovereignty of the People. This mechanism, Judicium Parium, which underpins and defines democracy sine qua non*, is the Common Law Trial by Jury.  *Hellenic Greece of the Constitution of government by Trial by Jury received from the Athenians the defining epithet, demokratia, Democracy. See etymology, history and signification in Chapter One of The Manifesto.  According to legem terræ* common law, it is the jurors’ duty in Trial by Jury to judge the justice of the law and every act of enforcement and acquit any persons accused under an arbitrary, unjust or apocryphal statute, regulation or prosecution. This procedure is known as Annulment by Jury**.  **It is sometimes referred to in a linguistically incompetent self-contradiction in terms as ‘jury nullification’. *terræ is pronounced terry, the ‘æ’ as in Cæsar, seize.  Terræ is Latin for “of the land.” Legem is the accusative Latin form; lex terræ is the synonymous nominative form. Legem Terræ, the Law of the Land, categorically excludes all statutes, laws and regulations made by government, and judges’ precedents (case law; stare decisis). See Articles of Common Law and the meaning of the terms Common Law and The Law of the Land in ‘Legal Definitions Unalterable at Common Law,’ in Chapter Three of The Manifesto. (There is no relation to the much later invention of autocratic, militaristic ‘maritime law’ which is sometimes referred to as ‘the law of the sea’.) As noted, all societies govern (rule) through their justice system. Free people and nations govern themselves through their Common Law Trial by Jury (proper noun; capitalised). The 1215 Great Charter Constitution Magna Carta ordained that, through Judicium Parium (Common Law Trial by Jury), the power to punish be removed from government and justices (judges); viz. proofs in Articles 20, 21 and 39. The judicial duty and power to punish and set sentences are restored “in perpetuity” to the Jurors who are the judges in every cause (lawsuit) civil, criminal and fiscal.  Government justices may moderate sentences but not increase them; see that function explained in Chapter Four of The Manifesto. In Common Law Trial by Jury, a defendant may only be convicted if the jury is unanimous in its judgement; i.e., its verdict and sentence. A ‘majority’ is not ‘a jury’. Hence, according to Common Law Trial by Jury there are no ‘majority verdicts’.  There are other ineluctable reasons as to why Common Law requires Unanimity to pronounce ‘guilt’. See Chapter Three, DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto.  Unjust laws and acts of their enforcement are crimes per se; such ‘laws’  require juries’ annulment. Those responsible for unjust laws and prosecutions require to be tried by jury for their Crimes against the People*. *Cf. Crime against Humanity; the Nuremberg Precedent, etc.  The protection of innocent minorities or individuals depends absolutely upon the honouring of the sovereignty of every single juror to judge the law, on admissibility of evidence, facts, motive, the nature and gravity of the offence, mitigating circumstances, and decide the verdict and sentence*.  *It also depends on supplemental Common Law parameters, such as Random Selection (by lot) of Jurors, etc. 
THE JUROR’S DUTY. Consider Harlan F. Stone, U.S. Chief Justice 1941-1946, on the Juror’s Duty in the authentic Trial by Jury, 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.) Chapter One, The Manifesto. TRIAL BY JURY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPLACED FOR THE PURPOSES OF: A.) not only ascertaining guilt or innocence of the accused and where necessary for apportioning retribution, but also B.) of transcendent importance, as a barrier to protect the vast mass of innocent citizenry from the crimes of arbitrary government, i.e., unjust laws, and from the corruption, prejudices and incompetence of fallible justices (judges). Trial by Jury enables the people to judge authoritatively what their liberties and laws are (explained below), so that the people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy. HOW EQUAL JUSTICE IS DONE:  THE JUROR’S DUTIES IN TRIAL BY JURY. Wherever Trial by Jury takes place, be it in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and numerous other countries, it is definitive of Trial by Jury that, after swearing to do justice, to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, in finding their Verdict: The Jurors Judge: ~on the justice of the law, and annul, by pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict, any law or act of enforcement which is deemed unfair or unjust according to the juror’s conscience (i.e., sense of fairness, right and wrong); ~in addition to the facts, and ~on the admissibility of evidence (evidence not being pre-selected or screened-out by government or judge and/or prosecutor). Jurors Must Judge: ~that the accused acted with malice aforethought, i.e., mens rea, a premeditated malicious motive, if the jury is to find guilt (‘guilt’ is a characteristic inherent or absent in motives and actions: it cannot be ascribed by legislation*); ~on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence; and, where guilt is unanimously found, ~on mitigating circumstances if any (provocation; temptation; incitation); and ~set the sentence (with regard to its being fit and just). *There is neither moral justice for punishing nor political necessity (i.e., deterrent value) where there was no mens rea. (In the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award compensation for damages.) For jurors not to do the above, or for someone other than the jurors to make any such decisions, is another process: call it “trial-by-someone-else” if you will, or “trial-by-the-judge with a false ‘jury’ watching”―but this travesty cannot be defined as a Trial BY JURY.
THERE IS ONLY ONE TRIAL BY JURY. It is mere falsehood to call a procedure “trial by jury” if the accused and any of the matters related to the case under judgement are tried by someone other than the jury. There is no process and no meaning to the words Trial by Jury other than that which the words themselves prescribe. Lord Justice Denman: “Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take or accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case.” Regina v. C.J. O’Connel, 1884. Emphasis added. THE ESTATES’ OPPORTUNISTIC GRASP FOR POWER. Taking advantage of the naïve, vulnerable imported Dutch Prince, the Estates conspired through the Bill of Rights to deny to ‘unmoneyed’ commoners, access to juror-derived sovereignty and Equal Justice. If the average person could be prevented from serving on a Jury, and those who were selected could be chosen from a pool comprised exclusively of upper class gentry, then enforcing the Estates’ acquisitive, self-interested statutes was a foregone conclusion. This latter end was achieved by the sordid machination of making the mass of the People “unqualified” to serve as a Juror on statutory grounds which required Jurors to own wealth and property.  Wealth “qualifications” in the Bill breached the laws, customs and Constitution of the People by quashing the commoner citizens’ exercise of their constitutionallyinstalled protective Procedure, Power, Right and Duty as Jurors to judge the law and annul prosecutions of unjust statutes by acquitting the accused detainee as Not Guilty.  Politicians’ self-aggrandising notion that “parliament is sovereign” is a treasonous modern politicians’ perjury in great part prompted by the void, repugnant Bill of Rights (see the guilty clause in the section on the monarch’s Oath). On the contrary, with Unanimity required to find ‘guilt’, each individual Juror has the Sovereign Power, Right and Duty to annul the prosecution of every unjust parliamentary statute. See extract from DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto. 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.  (V) Sovereignty Definition. Sovereignty, pre-eminence; the supreme and independent power expressed through the making and enforcing of the laws. 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 Common Law Trial by Jury; viz. Articles 24, 36, 39, 40,  61, etc. The monarch is sovereign over parliament but has no sovereignty over the People.  Note that the Coronation Oath binding the monarch to uphold the laws and customs of the People forbids monarchs from signing a statute into law if it breaches (is repugnant to) the Articles of the Law of the Land and Realm set into the 1215 Great Charter. The assent and signature of the sovereign (head of state) are requisite before a
parliamentary ‘bill’ may become enacted into statute law, but if a statute containing stipulations repugnant to the Constitution is signed by the head of state, the statute is nevertheless, de jure, instantly void and cannot be enforced legitimately: it is no law.  Parliament is not ‘sovereign’1. No one is ‘above’ the revered 1215 Constitution’s Law of the Land, parliament, judges and head of state notwithstanding. In perpetuity, commoner men and women in government are equally liable and subject to other commoner citizens’ private, cost-free prosecutions for acts of malice aforethought; i.e., definitive Crime at Common Law. “Acts” means both legislation and physical acts.  1 See Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and the Case of Doctor Bonham, Chapter Six of The Manifesto. The monarch is sovereign over parliament and may dissolve parliament. The head of state chooses and nominates the person who is to form an administration (‘government’). By recent convention, the person chosen heads the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, but this convention is not binding on the monarch.  Definitively, no parliament can ‘make’ a “constitutional statute” because no statute binds a subsequent parliament. (By contrast, constitutions bind governments permanently.) As shown by history, no statute can be ‘constitutional’, despite the overruled wayward wishful opinions of some few judges, lords, lawyers and politicians. For example, the section forbidding transfer to foreign powers of British sovereignty in the 1689 Bill of Rights itself was overruled by parliament’s ratification of statutes and treaties which took Britain into the foreign jurisdiction of the European Union. 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 explanation of Article 39, etc., in 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. (As noted, 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 (Chapter Two). 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. *Definition. axiomatic, adjective, self-evident; accepted fact (law); unquestionable.
See 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 the Juror’s Duties re judging on the admissibility of evidence. 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 of The Manifesto.  PARLIAMENTS’ FAUX STATUTES ARE IN TREASONOUS OPPOSITION TO  THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION AND PEOPLE. (X) Treason Treason is any act adjudged to undermine or be in conflict with the People’s Absolute Sovereignty ordained by the 1215 permanent 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; (VII) The Law of the Land, Legem Terræ.  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 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 before trial, including that of annulment. 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. This is the commission of an act of injustice. 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...? See The Juror’s Duties above. Whenever the defendant claims injustice in the law, 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 at a faux “trial by jury,” 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 defy 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. & J. d’Oudney, ISBN 9781902848211, SRC Publishing on Amazon. The Great Charter prescribed Trial by Jury for all lawsuits. To infringe in the smallest way upon the secular provisions of Magna Carta was considered by the participating clergy to warrant extreme punishment, namely, Excommunication, internal exile; at that time a life-threatening 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 in the textbook.) See as follows, 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 and security, not judicial, role. Q. “When is a judge not a judge?” A. “When the ‘judge’ is not a member of the jury.” Until the Latin-derived word ‘juror’ was adopted, jurors were actually called the judges, in recognition of their role. “...the judges, for so the jury were called...” See p. 55 of Crabbe’s History of the English Law, etc. In Trial by Jury, the Foreman or woman of the jury is the principal presiding officer. It is an irrevocable principle of secular moral justice and the traditional panEuropean, Irish, German, French, Spanish, Italian, the British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and the American people’s Common Law governing jurisprudence, and of Magna Carta (Article 24 of John’s Great Charter and 17 of Henry’s), that Trial shall be by Jury and that at Trial by Jury no judge or other officer appointed by government shall preside in criminal cases or lawsuits in which the government is also an interested party (called pleas of the crown in the U.K.; “teneant placita corone nostre.” See original ‘Cotton’ Manuscript Augustus ii.106**). In such cases, without the observance of this prohibition there can be neither Trial by Jury, nor legal trial of any type. **Beware! There is a treasonous fabrication in the official booklet and on-line British Library ‘translation’ of Magna Carta 1215. It invents this following phrase and adds it on to Article 24: “…that should be held by the royal justices.” This perjury gives the opposite impression that judges appointed by the king are to hold trials, whereas the following is the actual complete wording in Magna Carta seen on the original, sealed Latin document: “Nullus vice comes, constabularius, coronator, vel alii valivi nostri, teneant placita coronæ nostræ.” TRANSLATION:
No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our crown. The emphasis is added to “our” because (as distinguished from any officials appointed to their positions by government or monarch) at common law only locallychosen, i.e., elected convenors (usually local bailiffs, stewards, earldormen, sheriffs or others), can convene Trials by Jury. At common law, the convenors (who are now duplicitously referred to as ‘judges’) have NO judicial function whatsoever and are (or should be) elected regularly by the people, never appointed by government. See Book 4 of Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England, p.413; and  Introduction to Justice Sir Jeffrey Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p.2, note, & p.4; etc. The reasons for this are simple and pure: regarding convening officers (‘judges’) at trials, impartiality and integrity cannot be obtained (nor realistically even expected) from people who enforce the laws who are selected by those who also make and maintain the laws. At the common Law of the Land, whether in civil or criminal cases, all officers who convene trials are chosen (elected) by the people. According to common law, all convenors (justices; judges) are themselves subject to common law (Article Sixty-One) and are answerable to the common law and tribunals of the people (i.e., the Trial by Jury), and are categorically not protected by élite privilege nor impeachable by government and legislature. Government appointed judges may not judge in their own (the government’s) cause. Article Thirty-Nine of our world-esteemed permanent 1215 Great Charter Constitution Magna Carta transfers all power to punish out of the hands of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System intentionally takes a person out of the hands of the government (i.e., from judges and prosecutors) and places the accused under the protection of his or her equals and the Common Law alone: Trial by Jury allows no man or woman to be punished unless the indiscriminately chosen social-equals of the accused (i.e., the jurors) unanimously consent to it.  Trial by Jury is so-named, for in democratic societies the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the jury. Trial is not ‘trial-by-government’ which could never be fair where government is also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service and above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments’ laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer. For the aforegoing reasons, government and judiciary (justices; judges) are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any offence whatever. Sir William Blackstone’s Assessment: TRIAL BY JURY IS THE GLORY OF THE ENGLISH LAW. A principle of the secular common law in Magna Carta is that NO judgement (verdict and sentence) can be valid against a party’s money, goods or person, including a judgement for contempt or costs, unless it be a judgement rendered by a unanimous jury following the common law Trial by Jury (viz. Article Thirty-Nine). Let us ponder the counsel of the renowned sage, jurist, author and judge, His Honour Sir William Blackstone, KC, SL, and remind ourselves of what democracy truly is:
“The trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals.” Book 3, Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 379. Emphases added. KING ALFRED THE GREAT 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.
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.  THE SPECIOUS ATTRACTION TO THE 1689 BILL OF RIGHTS. Although the Bill promulgated the empty boast that it was an “Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,” its contents flatly belied those words. A reading of the Bill shows it subverted and flouted the constitutional protections afforded to the People by the Common Law Justice System. A parliamentary dictatorship was intended to be, and was in fact, established by the Bill.  Because of modern parliaments’ treachery in transferring sovereignty to the European Union, some people (McWhirter, Atkinson, et al.) clung to the Bill of Rights because amongst its terms it ‘prohibits’ such an activity, as follows:  “And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme.” Yet, to give authority to the Bill for that purpose gives authority to all its other clauses; to wit, those which destroy the People’s Sovereignty secured through Trial by Jury, the sole and precious source of their liberties emplaced “for ever” by the Constitution. The mass of the populace are thus enslaved to the improper whims of parliament’s members through their treasonously acquired “parliamentary sovereignty.”  Let those drawn to support the Bill by its wording above, consider the following: The Bill expressly commands the monarch to sign and execute parliament’s laws. The Bill states that without the “consent of parliament” it is “illegal” for the monarch to suspend the execution of parliament’s laws. This means that if parliament passes a law taking the kingdom into governance by the European Union, then the monarch must sign away sovereignty to that foreign power.  So, the aforegoing shows that the single ‘reason’ for Eurosceptics to claim the 1689 Bill of Rights is a “constitutional statute” purportedly “denying” parliament and head of state the right to transfer sovereignty to the EU, is crassly misconstrued. The ‘reason’ given is annulled by the very terms of the Bill themselves which stipulate it is illegal for the monarch to suspend execution of parliament’s statutes!  De facto, “constitutional statute” is a contradiction in terms. How inept are those who turned to the Bill of Rights to save us from the unelected EU soviet! They would enslave us equally to the malicious caprice of parliamentarians whose Bill destroys our inherent rights, Trial by Jury, Annulment by Jury, the Coronation Oath and all the liberties, laws and customs on which our
forefathers spent lives and blood establishing and maintaining. The Bill’s original proponents and those of modern times are traitors to the People. Understanding the Juror’s Sovereignty over the law in the authentic Trial by Jury shows there was never a need to rely on the Bill of Rights to show treason in the act of joining the EU! Parliament’s treason is more effectively established by knowledge of the permanent 1215 Great Charter Constitution. For to subject the British population to the jurisdiction of foreign courts and laws fatally breaches the Constitutional Sovereignty of the Juror to judge and decide all causes. There is NO Trial by Jury permitted by the repugnant EU ‘Treaty-Constitution’; only the despot’s and statists’ trial-by-judge instead. Yet, the British People have perpetual sovereignty over the law through the Trial by Jury and any activity which attenuates or attempts to attenuate the sovereignty of the Juror—such as joining the EU and submitting causes to foreign laws and courts—is High Treason.  Those parliamentarians and courts (judges) who claim “sovereignty” for parliament need reminding of the fate of judges Cadwine and Frebern (described above) who also undermined the People’s Sovereignty expressed through Trial by Jury…  Without exception, history shows that all societies bereft of Common Law Trial by Jury trend inexorably into crime, inequality, strife, injustice, misery and despotism. The paramount safeguard of the People is found in the equal right of all (sane, healthy, unconvicted) adults to be selected as a Juror and thereby be in a position to annul enforcement of unjust statutes which oppress (members of) the population.  Furthermore, Trial by Jury’s prosecutory aspect provides the mechanism by which unjust or unwanted statutes may be entirely expunged from the roll of statutes; viz. Chapter Four, Two Ways to Equal Justice, the Counter Plaint, etc.  CHURCHILL’S VIEW. “The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist.” 1 1 Sir Winston Churchill, Author, Chronicler, Historian, Philosopher, Nobel laureate for Literature; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See excerpt of telegram from Cairo to the U.K. Home Secretary on November the 21st, 1943; Second World War volumes.  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. Emphases added. UNDERSTANDING THE BILL’S  SPURIOUS STATUTORY “QUALIFICATIONS.” The Bill excluded the greater part of the populace from being selected to serve on juries and thus the people en masse were unable to judge and annul the injustice of acquisitive statutes passed by parliament. The Estates’ rapacious intent was embodied not only in the actual seizure, disseizin, of the people’s extensive common lands all over the country by established wealthy land-owners, but also in a de facto coup d’état by which the Estates desired nothing less than sovereignty for themselves over the monarch and People. From this illegal, constitutionally-void Bill (Act) derives the spurious, damaging invention of “parliamentary sovereignty.” The lords spiritual and temporal with the wealthy gentry who comprised the
“commons” (so-named simply because they were commoners, not lords) were to make the vulnerable Dutch prince and his espoused, Mary, subject to their rule. The Estates meant to become an undisputed sovereign oligarchy ruling for their own interests and enrichment. Their inserted wealth and property “qualifications” ensured juries consisted only of male gentry close to the seat of power; the men most likely to sympathise with and enforce the oligarchy’s self-interested statutes.  To understand the flagrantly corrupt misappropriation of power by the wording “unqualified” and “freeholder” within the 1689 Bill of Rights, it is necessary to know firstly, that there was a dearth of “qualifications” required at Common Law to serve as a Juror, and secondly, the implications of the term freeholder.  See this excerpt from The Manifesto ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6. (Some emphasis is added.)  Remember, at the time of Magna Carta “twenty shillings” was an income of status or the holding of a well-to-do member of the community. In pre-industrial times, production and sale of artefacts was limited as a means of acquiring income and the (common) land remained the common people’s source of food, security, and livelihood. Few and far between were those amongst skilled craftsmen and labourers who had significant incomes or owned property. See Hallam’s Middle Ages.  The freeman was a freeborn English male of unspecified, but adult, age. Freemen came from all backgrounds, rich and poor alike, and included close and distant relatives of titled people. These commoners comprised the great mass of the folk. As individuals, those called freeholders or freemen may have sublet or employed labourers and need not have actually been involved in agriculture. However, the freeman’s privilege was that he had the common law right to hold (tenant; tenir, to hold) crown land from the lord of the manor (district) if some was available, in exchange for rent paid in kind and armed service if called for national defence (specifically not for waging a monarch’s foreign wars of acquisition). For this reason, freemen were also known as ‘freeholders’, although they did not own land; it was rented.  In the Fifteenth Century, the word ‘freeholder’ came to be distorted in meaning by unconstitutional, illegal statutory interference. The epithet then was applied to men who had come to own property. (Hence the term, to own ‘freehold’, which is still in use.) Trustless monarchs who had ratified (‘versions’ of) Magna Carta nevertheless began introducing these de facto ‘jury selection and exclusion statutes’ with income or property ‘qualifications’ limiting people’s eligibility as jurors, shutting out the great mass of the population from judging on issues. In this way, degenerate government intent on increasing its dominance over the people breached common law and Constitution to choose jurors from a pool of upper-middle and high class people close to the seats of power and privilege. Such people were those most inclined to subjugate and take advantage of less fortunate working people, and to harbour partisan prejudices in favour of the government’s increasingly numerous, fiscally corrupt, and exceedingly cruel, statutes.  These statutory edicts of infamy would have found only disdain and dismissal from the common folk had they remained enfranchised as jurors, as was their due. At the will of dishonourable humans installed as monarchs who owed their loyalty to all the people and had taken oaths to uphold the People’s laws and customs, thus
commenced the squalid divisiveness of the English class system where ‘ordinary’ people’s rights are suppressed at the caprice of the privileged. The gentry could nevertheless be relied upon to represent their own views and interests when selected as jurors in a pretence of “trial by jury” wherein the courts infract the common law rule of random selection for jury pools from amongst all the local adult citizens. Nowadays, to obtain justice, money counts… Long and sad is the history of the unlawful erosion of the people’s Trial by Jury and with it the destruction of the basis of egalitarian society, social comity, true civilisation, equal justice and democracy within Britain. As a vassal to the lord, the freeman was a dependent commoner; a person holding land. This was distinct from the common land, to which all commoners had right of allotment and cultivation for their own disposable produce. However, all the available rentable land was soon taken up. The children of large families had to find methods of making their way in life. Freemen took to specialised crafts and skills, merchandising and trade for a living. The list is long and includes bowmaker, bowman, fletcher (arrow maker), archer, smith, bailiff, butler, steward, cooper (barrel maker), poulter, thatcher, tyler, wright, plowright, arkwright, weaver, cook, painter, chandler (candle maker), squire, furrier, spurrier (spur maker), baker, tailor, carpenter, gardener, fuller, brewer, farmer, merchant, hunter, skinner, tanner, saddler, tinker, miller, milliner, turner, tasker, spinner, dyer, groom, shepherd, and shearer. Evidently, they frequently came to be surnamed for their skill or trade.  THE BILL’S REPUGNANT STATUTORY “QUALIFICATIONS.” Trial by Jury was defined and prescribed by the 1215 Great Charter Constitution. That is to say, the Constitution set out the parameters of Common Law governing Trial by Jury; viz. Chapter Five, The Manifesto. There are NO “qualifications” for jury service; only exemptions. We know this from various sources of that era.  “Persons attainted of false judgements cannot be judges [note that the jurors were the judges of all aspects of the cause], nor infants, nor any under the age of twentyone years, nor infected persons, nor idiots, nor madmen, nor deaf nor dumb, nor parties in the pleas, nor men excommunicated by the bishop, nor criminal persons.” Mirror of Justices, pp. 59-60.  “Old men above three score and ten years, or being continually sick, or being diseased at the time of the summons, or not dwelling in that country [locality], shall not be put in juries of petit assizes.”  Ruffhead’s Statutes, St. 13, Edward I, ch. 38, 1285. Instead of supporting the Equal Justice of Constitution and Common Law, the Bill of Rights re-asserted and prolonged statutory terms illegally imposed by the Estates’ earlier repugnant statutes. These had forced anti-constitutional wealth qualifications on citizens before they could be selected for jury service; viz. examples below. Although payments in kind and barter were frequent and allotments provided plentiful food, cash-money was scarce. Down the centuries, the oppressive Estates and monarchs passed these despotic statutes.  Historian, lawyer and expert on the English Constitution Lysander Spooner has valuable information on this subject. See this three-page excerpt by him from TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True Purpose and Modern Relevance by d’Oudney & Spooner, ISBN 9781902848723.
Spooner: It seems it has never been doubted that, at common law, all the freeholders were eligible as jurors. If any had not been eligible, we unquestionably would have abundant evidence of the exceptions. If anybody alleges any exceptions, the burden will be on him to prove them. The presumption is that all were eligible.   Any legislation which infringes any essential principle of the common law in the selection of jurors, is unconstitutional; and the juries selected in accordance with such legislation are illegal, and their judgements void. Since Magna Carta 1215, the legislative power in England (whether king or parliament) has never had any constitutional authority to infringe by legislation, any essential principle of the common law in the selection of jurors. All such legislation is as much unconstitutional and void, as though it abolished the Trial by Jury altogether. In reality it does abolish it. Although all the freemen are legally eligible as jurors, any one may nevertheless be challenged and set aside at the trial for any special personal disqualification, such as mental or physical inability to perform the duties; having been convicted, or being under charge of crime; interest, bias, etc. But the common law allows none of these points to be determined by the court, but only by “triers” [the jury]. As the tenures of lands changed, the term freeholder lost its original significance and no longer described a man who held land of the state by virtue of his civil freedom, but only one who held it in fee-simple—that is, free of any liability to (rent as) military or civil services. But the government, in fixing the qualifications of jurors, has adhered to the term freeholder after that term has ceased to express the thing originally designated by it. The principle, then, of the common law, was that every freeman or freeborn male Englishman of adult age, etc., was eligible to sit in juries by virtue of his civil freedom, or his being a member of the state or body politic. But the new ‘principle’ of the English statutes is that a man shall have a right to sit in juries because he owns lands in fee-simple.  At the common law a man was born to the right to sit in juries. By the introduced statutes he buys that right when he buys his land. And thus this, the greatest of all the political rights of an Englishman, has become a mere article of merchandise; a thing that is bought and sold in the market for what it will bring. There can be no legality in such juries as these; but only in juries to which every free or natural born adult male Englishman is eligible. [Today, adult females are included.] The second essential principle of the common law controlling the selection of jurors is that when the selection of the actual jurors comes to be made (from the whole body of adults), that selection shall be made in some mode which excludes the possibility of choice on the part of the government. This principle forbids the selection to be made by any officer of the government. At the common law the [convenors of trials] sheriffs, bailiffs, and other officers were chosen [elected] by the people, instead of being appointed by the king1. At common law, therefore, jurors selected by these officers were legally
selected, so far as the principle now under discussion is concerned; that is, they were not selected by any officer who was dependent on the government. 1 See 4, Blackstone, p.413.  See also Introduction to Justice Sir Jeffrey Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p.2, note, & p.4. In the year 1315, one hundred years after Magna Carta, the choice of sheriffs was taken from the people and it was enacted2: “That the sheriffs shall henceforth be assigned by the chancellor, treasurer, barons of the exchequer, and by the justices (judges). And in the absence of the chancellor, by the treasurer, barons and justices.”  2 See (statute) 9 Edward II, sec. 2 (1315). These officers who appointed the sheriffs were themselves appointed by the king, and held their offices during his pleasure. Their appointment of sheriffs was equivalent to an appointment by the king himself. The sheriffs thus appointed held their offices only during the pleasure of the king, and were of course mere tools of the king; and their selection of jurors was really a selection by the king himself. In this manner the king usurped the selection of the jurors who were to sit in judgement upon his own laws. Here, then, was another usurpation by which the common law Trial by Jury was destroyed, so far as related to the county courts in which the sheriffs presided, and which were the most important courts of the kingdom. From this cause alone, if there were no other, there has not been a legal jury in a county court in England for several hundred years. From these statutes it is seen that since 1285, seventy years after Magna Carta, the common law right of all free British subjects to eligibility as jurors has been illegally abolished; and, qualifications for eligibility as jurors have been made a subject of arbitrary legislation. In other words, the government has usurped the common law, and the constitutional authority of the people, by selecting the jurors who were to sit in judgement upon its own acts. This is destroying the vital principle of the Trial by Jury itself, which is that the legislation of the government shall be subjected to the judgement of a tribunal taken indiscriminately from the whole people, without any choice by the government, and over which the government can exercise no control. If the government can select the jurors, it will, of course, select those whom it supposes will be favourable to its enactments. An exclusion of any of the freemen from eligibility is a selection of those not excluded. It is seen from the statutes cited [below] that the most absolute authority over the jury box—that is, over the right of the people to sit in juries—has been usurped by the government; that the qualifications of jurors have been repeatedly changed. But this is not all. The government has not only assumed arbitrarily to classify the people on the basis of property, but it has even assumed to give to some of its judges entire and absolute personal discretion in the selection of the jurors to be impanelled in criminal cases, as the following statutes show: “Be it also ordained and enacted by the same authority, that all panels hereafter to be returned, which be not at the suit of any party, that shall be made and put in afore any justice of gaol delivery or justices of peace in their open sessions to inquire for the king [i.e., the prosecution service], shall
hereafter be reformed by additions and taking out of names of persons by discretion of the same justices before whom such panels shall be returned; and the same justices shall hereafter command the sheriff, or his ministers in his absence, to put other persons in the same panel by their discretions; and that panel so hereafter

« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 08:59:50 PM by the leveller »

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk