The FCDAE-FIJA Campaign
THE FCDA EUROPE incorporating
Kenn d’Oudney, Mrs. Joanna d’Oudney & Astra d’Oudney are Directors of The FCDAE-FIJA (International). Acknowledgement, respect and thanks to Don Doig and Larry Dodge, Founders of FIJA in the United States. FIJA has numerous branches Stateside.
THE RESTORATION CAMPAIGN.
"History will recall that the Mission of FIJA today is the single most important political activity in the civilised world. The well-being, prosperity, protection and happiness of all people depend upon its successful outcome." -Kenn d’Oudney, Director, FCDAE-FIJA.
Campaign philosophy supported by academics, doctors and judges (U.S. & U.K.). Join in the Campaign by downloading and distributing the free posters and educational pamphlet. Contact us by e-mail today for your free Membership.
The FCDAE-FIJA CAMPAIGN Index
YOUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRACY OR IS YOUR GOVERNMENT A DESPOTISM ?
IS YOUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRACY OR
Suffrage does not define democracy, for electoral voting takes place in totalitarian states. Having been elected, there is nothing to stop government from imposing control of an upper house, reneging on pledges, nor from adopting any tyrannical measures it chooses.
Etymological derivation, Greek Demokratia: demos, the people; kratein, to rule; kratos, strength. Democracy is the form of government in which the Supreme Power is vested in the Common People.
Naturally, people have the moral responsibility, right and the duty to resist and suppress injustice wherever it occurs, and by whomsoever it is perpetrated, governments notwithstanding. By definition and in practice, Democracy requires that the People at all times retain the Supreme Power to annul injustices and the bad laws made by fallible politicians.
This Power is uniquely embodied in the Citizen-Juror’s Duty in Trial by Jury: to judge the justice of every act of law enforcement, and to render the Not Guilty Verdict whenever conviction or punishment of the accused would be unfair, according to the juror’s conscience.
Consider U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone on the Juror’s Duty, as follows:
"If a juror feels
that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it
infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional
rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no
law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is
bound to obey an unjust law."
The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System intentionally takes a person out of the government’s hands (i.e. from judges, prosecutors, police and prison service) and places the accused under the protection of his or her equals and the Common Law alone: Trial by Jury allows no man or woman to be punished unless the indiscriminately chosen equals of the accused (i.e. the jurors) consent to it.
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 seen to be fair where government is also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service and above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments’ laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer. For these reasons, government and judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any offence whatever.
Wherever Trial by Jury takes place, be it in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, N.Z., and numerous other countries, it is DEFINITIVE of Trial by Jury that, in finding their Verdict, the jurors judge on the justice of the law, in addition to the facts, and on the admissibility of evidence. For jurors not to do so, or for someone other than the jurors to make such decisions, is another process: call it ‘trial-by-someone-else’ if you will, or ‘trial-by-the-state-judge’—but this travesty cannot be defined as Trial BY JURY.
Why Is the Citizen-Juror’s Judgement on the Law
See the following paragraphs quoted from THE REPORT, ISBN 1902848160. THE REPORT is endorsed by academics and judges, and has a Foreword written by a Nobel laureate Official Adviser to U.S. government.
"In the governance of men and women, few, if any, matters are of greater consequence than the diligence and precision with which the judiciary observes and adheres to the definitive code of Common Law Trial by Jury, long established for the determination of an accused person’s guilt or innocence."
"All governments, comprised as they are of human beings, are fallible. Governments are capable of passing bad or oppressive [i.e. illegal] legislation, and authorising and organising the enforcement of such bad laws. When jury-trials are disallowed or juries are limited in their rôle to decide guilt or innocence only on the evidence produced by the state prosecutor of whether the accused had broken a law or not, any jury acting in this restricted way would not be able to protect good fellow citizens from unjust laws or the oppressions of the state. These ‘show trials’ are observed to take place in fascist, communist, and primitive tyrannies of totalitarian dictatorships, in countries which claim to be ‘democratic’. They are traditionally scorned for the mockery of justice that they are when compared to the democratic standards of Trial by Jury."
THE PURPOSE OF TRIAL BY JURY.
"People who judge authoritatively what their liberties are, retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. This is Liberty. Trial by Jury is a trial by the People of the country, distinguished from a trial by the government. The intention of this trial is to enable the People to determine their liberties; because, if the government determines the People’s liberties, then government has absolute power over the People; and this is the definition of despotism."
"In recognition of these immutable facts, Trial by Jury was adopted by the People as part of ‘the law of the land’ [i.e. common law] and installed subsequently by written constitutional law [Magna Carta; U.S. Constitution] as that tribunal which establishes permanently within the domain of the People, as opposed to the government, supreme judgement by citizen-jurors of the People’s liberties. Simultaneously, by that singular act in Trial by Jury, jurors (not judges, the government’s beholden employees) decide which behaviour is anti-social, forbidden, of criminal intent and punishable."
"To a degree achieved by no other constitution, Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury responds to mankind’s unceasing need: to enforce just laws; to uphold the innocent; to protect minorities; to nullify arbitrary government; and to reject injustice."
It is the presence or absence of constitutional adoption and
practical implementation of the Citizen-Juror’s Duty in Trial by Jury, to
judge the justice of every act of law enforcement, which defines, and comprises
the basis of, Democracy, sine qua non.
In practice and by definition, government which denies its ordinary citizens the right to judge the justice of the laws and the manner of their enforcement on their fellow citizens at trial, is a despotism.
"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."
‘Laws’ can be, and are, illegal for a variety of reasons, such as their being inequitable [i.e. unfair], or unfounded [not founded in truth, or, technically incorrect], or prejudiced in favour of one party to the contravention of the human rights or legal interests of another. Such tyrannical ‘laws’ are unlawful.
Constitutions which may be defined as legal, and as democratic, institute the Trial by Jury Justice System which embodies the Duty of ordinary citizens as Jurors to acquit as Not Guilty according to the Juror’s conscience, all citizens tried under law which the Juror judges to be oppressive or unfair.
However complicated the facts of the case are (and it is for the plaintiff to make his cause clear), it is axiomatic that, literate or not, all sane adult men and women can recognise injustice: it takes no special learning for an adult to know when a law is just. The special virtue of Trial by Jury for all causes (lawsuits) civil, criminal, and fiscal, is that it protects citizens for all time from injustice, unjust laws and arbitrary government. Common law juries continuously enforce the just laws (against murder, theft, rape, robbery, fraud, etc.) with unanimity, whilst unjust statutes, and the enforcement of injustices by fallible judges, are fittingly annulled (i.e. Jury Nullification) by the pronouncing of the Not Guilty Verdict.
The democratic Principle of our traditional Western Constitutions’ Trial by Jury is that it is the Will of the People represented by indiscriminately chosen Jurors, not the will of the court nor the current transient government, that must determine what laws shall be established, maintained, and how they are enforced. In this way, Trial by Jury is the common law’s Mechanism of Authority by which all the rights of all the People are protected, and on which all rights depend.
"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined
by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
Founded on and resulting from Common Law Trial by Jury installed by Magna Carta in 1215 in England, this Constitutional Justice System earned respect worldwide as the most democratic constitution and justice system ever devised; coveted by and the aspiration of suppressed populations elsewhere.
For centuries since 1215, the English people have revered and
called Magna Carta "the Palladium* of the People’s liberties." The
Juror’s Duty to judge the justice of law enforcement in Trial by Jury was the
foundation of the People’s sincere belief that all Britons never would be
slaves; and that the United Kingdom, the United States, and the numerous
post-colonial nations which constitutionally adopted the Common Law Trial by
Jury Justice System, are democracies.
Neither in Britain nor in the United States have legislatures ever been invested by the People with authority to remove the Right of the accused to a Trial by Jury for any charge or offence whatever, however serious or trivial, nor to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors.
Apparently ‘cultured’, judges past and present nevertheless ‘justify’ and enforce the most abject of legislation, e.g. Nürnberg Race Laws; crime-generating inherently illegal ‘prohibitions’; primitive ‘religious’ oppressions, etc. Without the Trial by Jury, no matter how many new ‘Bills of Rights’, ‘European Conventions on Human Rights’ or fabricated ‘constitutions’, when it comes to justice these legislative contrivances are figments: worthless, shaming pieces of paper — fine-worded fatal "Munich guarantees." This is so because judges are governments’ paid and bound obligants, who continuously, unconscionably, and judicably enforce injustices and infract the laws and tenets which normal human decency and democratic constitutions emplace.
The repeatedly ratified Great Charter of English Liberties is legally irrevocable: that is to say, it is constitutionally installed and its protections cannot legally be repealed or superseded by politicians, legislatures or governments.
Magna Carta constitutionally installed Trial by Jury for all causes (lawsuits), civil, criminal and fiscal, "in perpetuity" and "for ever," (see Preamble and Article 63 of Magna Carta of the 15th day of June, 1215). This was explicitly for the protection of the individual from arbitrary (i.e. antidemocratic; tyrannical) government. In Britain, whatever disgraceful usurpation and lawless ‘legislation’ has nowadays been introduced by unthinking or criminal statist* politicians, executive, legislatures and judiciary, the arbitrary act of denying the accused the right to a trial by one’s peers, is a most grave crime per se. All persons thus persecuted by government, are entitled to elect Trial by Jury and if acquitted, are due Amnesty and Restitution.
* Definition, statist: one who believes in absolute control of the People by government officials in all aspects of life, social, economic and other; as opposed to the democrat [not party-political] who, as shown herein, believes in control of the government by the People. To achieve this end and protect the innocent from arbitrary government, the democratic person uncompromisingly insists and requires ordinary citizens as jurors in Trial by Jury to have the final say and control of every act of law enforcement.
Whether you vote Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Labour, Conservative, etc., if you consent to the Trial by Jury being removed, or it being run by judges who interfere with or deny the Citizen-Juror’s definitive Duties to judge the law, facts, admissibility of evidence, on mens rea, mitigating circumstances and the sentence, then you are party to despotic control by a government employee and you are the enemy of all democratic people: you are a totalitarian statist. You do not believe in the advanced profound concepts upon which compassionate true civilisation is based; you reject Trial by Jury, the U.S. and U.K. Constitutions, and you renounce the fine democracy of the Founding Fathers.
In addition to the presidents, prime ministers and chief justices often quoted in their advocation of the superiority of Trial by Jury over all systems of justice and law enforcement, the following is further impartial appraisal of the Great Charter and Trial by Jury, and, by implication, of the U.S. Constitution, which also bases its Justice System on the Trial by Jury. Legal historian and philosopher Sir James Mackintosh (a Scot) says of Magna Carta:
"To have produced it, to have preserved it, to have matured
it, constitute the immortal claim of England on the esteem of Mankind. Her
Bacons and Shakespeares, her Miltons and Newtons, with all the truth which they
have revealed, and all the generous virtues which they have inspired, are of
inferior value when compared with the subjection of men and their rulers to the
principles of justice; if, indeed, it be not more true that these mighty spirits
could not have been formed except under equal laws, nor roused to full activity
without the influence of that spirit which the Great Charter breathed over their
Hume calls the Trial by Jury:
"an institution admirable in itself, and the best
calculated for the preservation of liberty and the administration of justice,
that was ever devised by the wit of man."
"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."
Trial by Jury is the vital part of The Constitution, which places the liberties of the people within their own keeping. Of this Blackstone says:
"The Trial by Jury is that trial by the peers [i.e. equals]
of every Englishman which, as the grand bulwark of his liberties, is secured to
him by the Great Charter. The liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as
this palladium* remains sacred and inviolate, not only from all open attacks,
which none will be so hardy as to make, but also from all secret machinations
which may sap and undermine it."
The denial of the Common Law Trial by Jury transfers supreme power from the People to a ruling élite: a despotism or oligarchy. The denial of the Juror’s rôle and Duty denies Trial by Jury.
U.S. President John Adams, lawyer, pronounced about the Juror:
"It is not only his Right but his Duty to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in
direct opposition to the direction of the court [i.e. the judge]."
Today, however, in the U.S., U.K. and elsewhere, Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury is denied by politicians’ illegal antidemocratic ‘legislative’ contraventions; and, where it does purport to take place, Trial by Jury is precluded by judges’ unlawful intervention to forbid jurors from judging on equity issues, on the justice of the law and its enforcement. From this vile seed despotism is extant, all-pervading and visibly growing.
Trial-by-the-judge (the system which denies the Citizen-Juror’s Duty to judge the justice of law and its enforcement) is the National Socialist (NAZI), Stalinist, Soviet, fascist and communist system of judicial oppression, by which primitive tyranny thrives; massive injustices are routinely enforced on innocent people; and citizens are intentionally put into permanent fear and servitude.
If a juror or any citizen accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror or citizen has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that was once the citizen’s safeguard of liberty.
The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was time.
Complacent, ignorant, servile populations of Westerners, e.g. Americans, British, Europeans, New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians, have allowed antidemocratic politicians to strip them of their legal protections which are Constitutionally established as the Juror’s Rights and Duty. People have permitted institutionalisation of despotic attitudes. Oppression has taken root and become widespread even in the former great bastions of democracy.
© COPYRIGHTS held variously and/or jointly by The Owners, The Authors, The FCDAE-FIJA and SCORPIO RECORDING COMPANY (PUBLISHING) LTD., to materials, written and pictorial, on this website. All rights reserved.
FCDAE-FIJA Campaign Index
YOUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRACY OR IS YOUR GOVERNMENT A DESPOTISM ?
V. WHAT IS FIJA ?
HOW DEMOCRACY IS RUINED.
The FCDAE-FIJA campaigns for the re-implementation of the ordinary Citizens’ legal Right and Duty as a Juror to judge on the justice of law and every act of enforcement; and to annul the enforcement of bad laws and all injustices against citizens by finding the Not Guilty Verdict.
THE RIGHT OF JURORS TO JUDGE
Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania.
Jurors do not decide the Verdict simply on whether evidence indicates a person "broke the law." Quakers Penn and Mead broke the law in letter and spirit in front of very numerous witnesses. The Penn and Mead infraction was knowing and intentional. The facts of the case were known to all: judge, jury and the public. There was no desire in the defendants to deny their brave stand. Indeed, their outspoken behaviour at trial indicated the converse. The evidence against them was incontrovertible.
Latterday lawyers’ erroneous accounts of this case (which are intended to undermine the right to, to efface the value of, and to deny the necessity for, Jury Nullification) evade, or are in ignorance of the religio-political circumstances surrounding it.
The King was not only Head of State but Supreme Head of the Established Protestant Church of England. Following Europe and England’s centuries of ‘religious’ wars and strife, the Church was in favour of and intended the most extreme castigation (decapitation or auto-da-fé, i.e burning alive at the stake) of adherents such as Quakers to "heretical religions." In religious matters, the Church could not be disputed.
For Chief Justice Vaughan to have made an outright declaration or even an allusion to or recognition of the ‘possibility’ that the Jury in the Penn and Mead case could have annulled the prosecution on the grounds that the law was "unjust" would have earned him the executioner’s blade. It also would have set back the cause of religious freedom, which most educated people had at last come to adopt. Yet, in view of firstly, the absolute irrefutability of the evidence; secondly, the defendants’ defiant declamatory demands from the dock for independence of conscience; and thirdly, the intense hostility of the Church to even the slightest dissent, to allow the acquittal to stand was blatantly to confront the injustice and tyranny of the law.
The Chief Justice’s upholding of the acquittal was acknowledged throughout the land and the Colonies as a sensational and supremely courageous act, especially given his proximity to the sanguivolent chief representatives of the Church.
By his act, Chief Justice Vaughan upheld the jury’s Duty to acquit regardless of the law or the instructions of the judge, if the finding of a verdict of ‘guilty’ would be unjust to the accused. Exemplified by the above well-known instance, when the trial is by jury the Jury’s Right to acquit when it perceives that conviction or punishment would be an injustice, supersedes in authority the government and court.
This event, and the Principle of Jury Nullification in general, confirm in the minds of the discerning that the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, prescribed and defined by Constitutional law Magna Carta in 1215 (ratified repeatedly), is the finest and most democratic Justice System ever devised.
For such ideal and moral principles, likewise, the U.S. Constitution enshrines the Trial by Jury as the sole Justice System for all (non-impeachable) crimes.
The Penn and Mead case exemplifies how, for all time, Democracy relies utterly on ordinary citizens having ultimate control of their Justice System.
Furthermore, the case sets an example for today, not only to Jurors but also to citizens in judicial and magisterial positions in tribunals everywhere: in finding a Verdict, everyone is duty-bound to judge both the justice of the law, and on whether the behaviour of the accused was of mens rea, i.e. guilt or criminal intention, without which no crime can have been committed. (See section on mens rea; "Guilty" or "Not Guilty," which follows.) In the Penn and Mead trial, jurors found not the defendants, but the law wanting.
Enforcement of injustice by state personnel is an illegal punishable act: cf. Crime Against Humanity; ratified Principles; 12-10-1946; International law. It is for the ordinary people at large represented by indiscriminately chosen adult citizens to judge the justice of the act of law enforcement in finding the Verdict.
At this point, one of the many aspects of the superiority of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System is established over the primitive tyrannical system of enforcement-by-government-judges; which does away with citizens’ judgement and the Trial by Jury. As the paramount democratic Safeguard of the ordinary people against those in government who would do injustice, the jury is the only extra-governmental body [i.e. outside of the government and state employees] constitutionally emplaced to judge the law and every act of enforcement. Bearing in mind that no government ever conceded that the laws it enforces could be "unjust," this makes the jury’s judgement on the justice or otherwise of the law, the only true democratic testing of the law.
"The Jury has the Right to determine both the law and
Today, judges feloniously continue still to misinstruct juries to find a ‘guilty verdict’ without the jurors making a judgement as to whether doing so would be unfair to the accused.
Be it well understood:
Jurors are ignorant, servile and morally wrong if they convict against their conscience—but, above all, in so doing they commit a crime; they strike a blow against democracy and the people; and they defile the Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System.
To convict someone Not Guilty of any wrongdoing is one of the most serious crimes it is possible to commit. This is the behaviour which drives politicians and judges to become confidently despotic beyond restraint.
At all times, every adult person has the moral responsibility to suppress injustice. Every act of injustice is a common law crime, whether committed by private citizens or by the state. Jurors and government employees alike are accountable. See ratified Principles, U.N. Resolution, 12-10-1946:
PRINCIPLE I: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible and liable to punishment."
PRINCIPLE II: "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not release the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
PRINCIPLE III: "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
PRINCIPLE IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to the order of his government or a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Whether by participation in the enforcement of arbitrary legislation, or from the following of direct orders, being party to the execution of injustice is a criminal offence (cf. Crime Against Humanity).
In the Trial by Jury context, the moral choice quoted above is ALWAYS "possible;" it is definitively obligatory: the "choice" is mandatory. De jure, under pain of penalisation, all those involved at every stage of the creation, maintenance and enforcement of law, including jurors, must make the moral choice and judge the law, and accordingly take the appropriate action or make the apposite decision.
TRIAL BY JURY IS INIMITABLE.
Citizen-Juries fully informed and instructed to judge on the justice of law and its enforcement, can be relied upon to protect people from the state, when the state breaches correct behaviour in attempting to enforce injustices. It is for this reason that those who stand to gain money and/or power from tyranny by the imposition of unjust ‘laws’, regard the genuine Trial by Jury as an obstacle to be undermined and destroyed. Untrustworthy at best, of outright criminal intent at worst, are those who, instead of restoring Common Law Trial by Jury to its true form, would discard it altogether...
Viz. for example, U.S. politicians ruining the People’s exemplary U.S. Constitutional rights to Habeas Corpus protection and Trial by Jury for all criminal and fiscal lawsuits, under the terms inflicted by the unpatriotic Patriot Act and other illegal legislative and regulatory interventions.
Viz. for example, British politicians’ illegal and
unconstitutional intervention to deny the right to a Trial by Jury for de facto
innocent persons accused under numerous categories of venal* governments’
fabricated ‘offences’; see THE REPORT ISBN 1902848160.
Viz. for example, the antidemocratic commissars and politicians of the European Union malevolently installing the d’Estaing "European Constitution," overriding the wishes of the People as expressed in both referenda and polls. This specious charter imposes the prejudiced, corrupt system of trial-by-judges and denies Trial by Jury altogether.
Legislators and judges are exposed to all the temptations of money, fame and power, to induce them firstly, to overlook and deliberately disregard justice in the framing, passing, interpreting and enforcing of legislation; and secondly, to become actively biased between contesting litigants, causing politicians and judges to sell the rights and interests, and violate the liberties of the People. Jurors are exposed to none of these temptations.
Jurors are not liable to bribery, for they are unknown to the contesting parties until they come into the jury-box. Further, the laws of human nature do not permit the supposition that twelve adult men and women taken by lot (indiscriminately) from the mass of the people, will all prove dishonest. (Common law requires unanimity to pronounce a guilty verdict.)
Jurors can hardly gain fame, power or money by giving erroneous decisions. Their office as juror is temporary. They know that when they have executed it, they must return to everyday life and they rely on all their rights being upheld by the judgements of jurors who will be their successors, and to whom they are an example.
This Trial by Jury Justice System is unique and inimitable: that is, it cannot be equalled by other legal arrangements. It places a curb on legislation the enforcement of which the Citizen-Juror adjudges would be unfair and tyrannical; and a Jury ensures to us—what no other court does—that first and indispensable requisite in a judicial tribunal: integrity.
The powers of juries not only place a curb on the powers of legislators and judges, but also imply an imputation on their integrity, impartiality and trustworthiness. These are the reasons why legislators and judges have harboured the most intense hatred for juries, and, so fast as they could do it without alerting the People to the loss of their liberties, have now destroyed juries’ power to judge on justice issues, and with it the Trial by Jury.
The self-proclaimed Western bastions of ‘democracy’ are illusory. That which militaristic tyranny and the Twentieth Century’s Great Wars of Aggression failed to ruin, is destroyed inimically from within by parasitic individuals of insidious government.
Whenever and wherever Trial by Jury is not in place, or it is allowed by the insouciance of the population to be interfered with by government and its representatives, there tyranny and crime inevitably prevail. The (Western) tradition of Judaeo-Christian morality and the universal natural common laws of equity and justice teach that Democracy, id est the control by ordinary people of every aspect of government, is to be favoured over and when necessary fought for in resistance to the foible of humans established in authority always to suppress the Freedom of others.
Nowadays, Trial by Jury is precluded by judges’ illegal intervention to forbid jurors from judging on equity issues, on the justice of the law and its enforcement.
The courts’ current unlawful modus operandi is to facilitate the tyranny manifest in the judiciary’s antidemocratic enforcement of inequitable statutes and regulations, which otherwise citizen-jurors en masse would emphatically annul.
The motive behind, and explanation for, judges’ boundless treachery are the same today as they have always been, and they confirm that the indispensability of Trial by Jury is eternal:
The judiciary is responsible, not to the People, but to the government; judges are dependent for careers, salaries and by impeachment, on the legislature: to remain judges, they must reliably enforce unjust legislation.
Judges regard themselves as, and are, bound to enforce the laws, even when doing so is an act of extreme injustice. Once a law has been passed and interpreted for enforcement by the courts, then, unlike jurors, in the routine of court cases judges are not permitted to dispute or judge the justice of law and its enforcement.
To allow these compromised humans to dictate the law, utterly surrenders all the liberties, rights, property and money of the People, to the arbitrary will of apostate politicians. Any person who would propose or support such a system of enslavement and subjection of the People, suffers from lack of education and knowledge of human behaviour and political history, or from acute antidemocratic mens rea (criminal intent).
The infractions by modern judiciaries of the strictures of the U.S. Constitution and the U.K. Great Charter Constitution, and of universal natural law and justice, and the Common Law, are epitomised, and the injustice of today’s ‘justice system’ is demonstrated by judges’ prevaricative misstatement of law (which they are all too fond of reciting) that "parliament/ congress makes law, and judges enforce it." Au contraire...
... a just system is the only one that is legal: trial-by-the-government-judge has always been unacceptable to people of probity. Viz. the reasoned advocation of the Common Law Trial BY JURY Justice System, by the chief justices, judges, lawyers and heads of state quoted.
Compounding their violation of common law and suffocation of Justice, nowadays, arrant ‘judges’ do not even permit defence lawyers to tell juries that it is a definitive and integral part of the Juror’s function to judge the justice of law enforcement. Thus is Trial by Jury by judges dismembered.
The modern judges have judicably corrupted themselves beyond the pale, abetting and participating in abject tyranny with their perverted and inequitable misconstruing and enforcing of money-motivated criminogenic (crime-engendering) legislation.
Under the Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System, Common Law juries (not judges), try, reject or enforce the law.
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which
is to be decided."
"GUILTY" OR "NOT GUILTY" ?
It is an unalterable principle of the People’s common law (by which the executive, legislature, judiciary, and all citizens including jurors, are legally bound) that there can be no crime without there having been mens rea, i.e. guilt or criminal intent.
Guilt is a personal attribute or quality of the actor. It might not be involved in the act itself but guilt depends on the intent or motive with which the act was committed. The jury must find a person acted from a criminal motive in order to find him or her guilty. This is the issue the jury try: "guilt," or "not guilty".
Justice can only demand punishment and the finding of a guilty verdict where there has been criminal intent or motive. There is no moral justice nor political necessity (i.e. deterrent value) for punishing where there was no mens rea. (In the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for damages.)
Guilt is an intrinsic attribute of actions and motives by which common law defines ‘crime’. Common law Trial by Jury makes criminal intent or guilt a necessity preliminary to conviction. ‘Guilt’ cannot be imparted to an action simply by legislation. This mechanism of the common law Trial by Jury protects (is intended to protect) individuals from governments which have criminal ends and would seek to further them by making statutory ‘offences’ out of innocent acts which are not crimes.
The mechanism can be effective only where the law is not broken by courts and government, and the Constitution is faithfully upheld: that is, where Jurors’ functions to judge the law, facts, and decide on the admissibility of evidence are fulfilled and are not illegally denied by judges or by politicians’ legislative contraventions.
In Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, it is the citizen’s Duty to nullify prosecutions of bad laws by dismissing charges against the accused by finding the Not Guilty verdict. Today, as throughout history, whenever this Jury Nullification Duty is suppressed by courts or despots, it is to serve a criminal, and frequently venal, motive of government and others implicated.
Today, politicians and judiciary driven by the ulterior motive, infract Constitutions and common law, and on a routine basis fabricate ‘offences’ out of things which are not and never will be ‘crimes’. Wayward judges’ enforcement of the corrupt, inequitable and perjurious ‘legislation’ then fines, incarcerates and otherwise abuses innumerable harmless innocent citizens where their acts are without guilt and of no criminal intent.
The corruption of the modern judiciary is self-evident in judges’ upholding the criminally arbitrary authority of government, by judges actively procuring conviction of individuals for acts innocent in themselves, and the commission of which therefore indicates no criminal intent—but which are ‘forbidden’ by illegal ‘statute’. In flagrant breach of morality and common law, judges routinely abet persecution of innocent people by permitting and participating in prosecutions of these false ‘laws’, simply because not to do so would lose them their job. In all these cases, the citizens involved are due Amnesty and Restitution (as for other Wrongful Penalisation).
Ergo: the virulent consequences of government denying or subverting Trial by Jury are predictable, premeditated and inevitable.
Today and throughout history, the veracity and accuracy of the aforegoing two statements and derivative logical conclusion are confirmed by the experience. The outcome of governments’ violation and/or denial of Common Law Trial by Jury is that, today, as ever, local and national governments punitively enforce unjust laws and regulations on a routine basis.
See TRIAL BY JURY ISBN 1902848721 for examples of the extreme degree to which arrant modern ‘judges’ enforce injustices.
JURY NULLIFICATION IS A PRIVATE DECISION.
Jurors do not need to give a reason ever, to any person at any time, for refusing to render a verdict of guilty in the Trial by Jury. The defendant(s) found Not Guilty cannot be tried twice under the same charge.
In upholding the acquittal of Quakers Penn and Mead, Chief Justice Vaughan pointed out that the court (trial judge) and the prosecution can never know what evidence or reason is in the juror’s mind by which he (or she) decides. See the wording (above) of the famous Plaque at The Old Bailey Court in London, which commemorates this landmark acquittal.
Jury Nullification is not an ‘argument’ which one presents; nor can it be ‘disallowed’. A Right may be illegally denied and abused, but it is inherent to the life of every man and woman: it is never ‘lost’.
One does not articulate Nullification in the court or the jury-room. It is a private decision: the legal and moral responsibility and duty of Citizen-Jurors always to prevent (i.e. nullify) the prosecution of a fellow citizen when conviction or punishment would be unfair. This is done by the Juror pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict.
If, in the privacy of the jury-room, another juror broaches the topic of nullifying the prosecution on the grounds of injustice, and if this is indeed the case as many modern ‘laws’ and prosecutions are oppressive [i.e. illegal], then one owes spoken support to that juror. Otherwise, however, discretion is called for, because judges are known to dismiss the jury, pronouncing a ‘mistrial’, after jurors have informed the judge that other jurors have raised the subject of Nullification.
In the situation where no other juror seems to be aware of their duty to nullify enforcement of unjust laws, jurors can concentrate on the dubious nature of the prosecution witnesses, police, etc., in not finding a guilty verdict. Whenever, according to the conscience of the juror, the law is wrong, i.e. unfounded, venal, inequitable; or whenever the conviction or punishment of the accused would be unfair, it is the juror’s Duty to find the accused Not Guilty—for no one is bound to obey an unjust law—and today there are very numerous unjust statutes.
In short, to straighten out our Western society, one must nullify the prosecutions of laws which one knows to be bad and unjust: and one has to get selected for the jury. Remember, ‘evidence’ that the accused ‘broke the law’ is irrelevant to the verdict when the law itself is unfair and thus illegal: in these circumstances, the only just verdict possible is that of Not Guilty.
The jury’s power to reject and annul bad law continues to be recognised, as in the 1972 ruling of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals:
"The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."
The educated good democratic person, THE FULLY INFORMED JUROR, adopts the overriding legal and moral duty to prevent injustice from being inflicted by the judge on the accused—one does not "ask" a lawyer, a QC or the judge for permission to perform this Nullification duty. Educated citizens are aware that nowadays, the courts (judges) go out of their way premeditatedly to misinstruct Jurors and deny them their proper functions, especially that of judging on the justice of the law.
To counter the crimes of antidemocratic modern politicians and judiciary, The FCDAE-FIJA campaigns for:
THE FULLY INFORMED JURY AMENDMENT.
ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE IN JURY SELECTION,
© All rights reserved.