All societies govern by their Justice System. The power to punish carries with it ALL power. It remains a universal eternal criterion of justice that the validity and justice of laws and all acts of their enforcement require to be judged not by those who make and enforce the laws (government), but by those who voluntarily agree to abide by the laws (all the adult citizens). All those who do not uphold this tenet are then promoting unlawful rule by a tyrannical élite. Unwittingly, or for self-advantage, they serve despots, abet tyranny, and are the criminal enemies of freedom and equal justice.
Because the fairness and justice of the laws and all acts of law enforcement require to be judged by those who agree to abide by the laws (not by those who make and enforce the laws), according to natural law, common law, constitutional law, and the paramount requirement for Equal Justice, the Common Law Trial by Jury of ordinary adult citizens in which the jurors judge the justice of the law is the only justice system which is legal and just everywhere, for all process of law, civil, criminal and fiscal.
That is why Common Law Trial by Jury is installed by ALL legitimate constitutions as the sole justice system for all crimes (unimpeachable), civil, criminal and fiscal.
The Juror is sovereign in Trial by Jury. Trial by Jury defines democracy, sine qua non. Within a Hellenic or modern democracy, the Jury Comprises the Supreme Legislature.
THIS CASE RULING EXEMPLIFIES DEMOCRACY AT WORK:
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognise the undisputed power of the jury to acquit even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence."
"If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
United States v. Moylan; U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F. 2d 1002.
Neither in the United States, Britain, Eire, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, nor in all of Europe and elsewhere, have legislatures ever been invested by the People with authority to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors to govern government; nor to remove the universal Right of the accused to the Trial by Jury of peers for any charge or offence whatever, however serious or trivial.
Today, U.S. v Moylan is not exemplified by the modus operandi of courts. Democracy has been overturned by politicians and judiciary.
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, tyranny; and from the prejudices and incompetence of fallible justices (judges). Trial by Jury enables the people to judge authoritatively what their liberties and laws are (as explained herein), so that the people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy.
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 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 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 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 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.)
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’ -- but this travesty cannot be defined as Trial BY JURY.
AN IRREVOCABLE PRINCIPLE RECOGNISED
BY COMMON LAW IN REGARD TO ‘JUDGES’.
It is an irrevocable principle of the traditional (pan-) European, 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 53 of John’s 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.). In such cases, without the observance of this prohibition there can be neither Trial by Jury, nor legal trial of any type.
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. At common law, all convenors (justices; judges) are themselves subject to common law and are answerable to the common law tribunals of the people (i.e., Trial by Jury), not protected by élite privilege nor impeachable by government and legislature.
See Book 4 of Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 413; and Introduction to Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p. 2, note, & p. 4; etc.
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 these reasons given, government and judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any offence whatever.
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 rôle. "...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.
In Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, all adult citizens qualify for jury service (save the aged, the sick, convicts and lunatics). Common law requires Jurors to be indiscriminately chosen by lot or chance, so as to represent all views in society and protect minorities (see later sections on Jury Selection and Illegal ‘Jury Packing’ by the government).
The Criteria for Measuring the Legitimacy of Governments.
Legem terræ common law is indispensable to the maintenance of civil peace, the well-being of all the population, and to the inalienable right of humans to unmolested tranquillity of existence, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, it is of supreme importance that, for their own benefit, every sane teen and adult comes to understand the common law and, without compromise, support and ceaselessly campaign for the restoration of its supremacy.
Common Law is the timeless supreme universal legal and moral code which ‘exists’ independently over statute law. Whether governments acknowledge and submit to legem terræ common law are the criteria for measuring their legitimacy.
IN CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY:
~the jury has the power to call witnesses, advisers and appoint amicus curiæ*;
* amicus curiæ is Latin for ‘a friend to the court’; an impartial adviser not a party to the case (pronounced cure-ee-ee, the æ as in Cæsar; seize);
~the rule of law rôle of convenors of courts (‘judges’) is as a convenor and for arranging security; advisory, inasmuch as this may be requested by the jury, of which advice jurors may take only what is by them adjudged appropriate; and for the arranging of re-trials and appeals if necessitated by circumstances (see Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, pp. 57 & 70; and Vol. 1 of Palgrave’s Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, p. 277; etc.);
~those misnamed ‘justices’ or ‘judges’ (i.e., the convenors) are wholly subsidiary to and at the command of the jury and its Foreman or woman;
~the ‘judge’ has no judicial rôle or authority: this precludes the possibility of judges inflicting injustices as is so often the case today;
~self-evidently, a person without judicial authority cannot legitimately set ‘precedents’, make ‘case law’, ‘rulings’ on law, or ‘interpretations’ of law. Still less can the outpourings of a person bereft of a judicial position interpret or dictate the law in any way binding on a Jury. At the common law, for the irrevocable principles of fairness, impartiality and justice explained above, only the Jurors (not the government ‘judge’) try, i.e., judge, the case according to common law principles and duties;
~at common law, excepting criminals and lunatics, the functions and rôle of the ‘judge’, i.e., the convenor, are straightforward and can be undertaken by any elected or sortition (i.e., randomly) chosen adult inexpert in the law;
~laws which are plainly just require little debate or explanation. Until a written law is thus evidently and plainly just it merits no place place in the statute book: its prosecution requires Annulment-by-Jury; its expunction from the roll of legislation is mandated by jurors rejection of its enforcement;
~advice may be requested by the jurors from the convenor (‘judge’) who need not be qualified in the law to perform the functions of convenor because, according to common law, if explanation of a law is ever required, or its justice or validity and hence its very legality is disputed, both the plaintiff and the accused and their counsel and amicus curiæ may render such explication as the jury deems necessary;
~jurors may observe or reject advice about the law as they consider appropriate and decide the law and verdict according to their individual conscience (i.e., sense of fairness, right and wrong);
~the Trial by Jury is the only system which is legal for all process of law, civil, criminal and fiscal. This was duly recognised and inscribed into Magna Carta (viz. Article 39). That is to say, government only has the power to act against a person, his property or liberties by the authority of, and according to the sentence of a jury.
~contempt charges laid on persons by juries or judges have to be tried as for any crime, that is, by jury;
~the jurors’ duty to do justice, and the Right of Juries to find the Verdict according to the jurors’ convictions and conscience, are amongst the duties which define the Trial as being by Jury (as opposed to it being trial by government or trial-by-judge).
~all evidence can be presented, and requires to be considered for its admissibility by the jurors -- especially if it reveals partiality, injustice, an unfounded nature, or venality in the law.
~by ascribing judgement (i.e., all judicial functions) to the peers (jurors), the Trial by Jury comprises a Constitution per se, allowing punishments neither to be prescribed by statute, that is, by the legislative power, nor in any other manner by government or judges. Consequently, all statutes or regulations prescribing particular punishments for particular ‘offences’, or giving the government’s judges any authority to set punishments, were, and are, void. Such sentences pertaining thereto are Miscarriages of Justice. All persons suffering persecution thereby are due a proper Trial by Jury (re-trial); and if found to have acted innocently, i.e., behaved without malice aforethought (the criterion by which ‘guilt’ is defined by common law), are due (overdue) Amnesty and Restitution.
~common law takes into account the fact that if the amounts of fines were left to be set by the government (judge) it would represent an irresistible pecuniary temptation for government to impose oppressive amercements on people. Similarly, if the judges were allowed to set sentences other than fines, they could be seduced by corrupt motives into threatening or imposing harsh sentences to achieve criminal aims.
~in short, common law and accordingly the Constitution forbid government functionaries from interfering in any aspect of the judgement and sentencing of a citizen’s behaviour in any case whatsoever. The pan-European common law inscribed into Magna Carta prescribes that all aspects of the case are to be judged by the jurors. It was and remains the purpose of Trial by Jury to protect the people from all possible oppression by government. The jury and only the jury set the sentence.
~common law does not prescribe that the government must punish according to the sentence of the peers, but that government shall not punish "unless according to" that sentence. It does not oblige government to execute the sentence; but it forbids government from going beyond the sentence. Government might lessen the sentence or acquit on grounds of law, or even pardon. However, government cannot legally punish beyond the extent of the jurors’ sentence. In this way, the Constitution forbids government from punishing, except according to the judgement of peers: "nisi per judicium parium suorum."
~convenors (‘judges’) cannot pronounce sentences unless they have been first set by the jury following a lawful common law Trial by Jury. Hence, legally, judges cannot procede summarily in any case whatever, even when a plea of guilty is entered. For convenors to do so judicably breaches common law.
~Whilst administrative courts (justices, judges) may fulfil the duty of the judicial department to interpret the meanings of the words comprising a statute, to indicate to the legislature what the law may be and reflect upon statutes, legislation, regulations and such evidence as is submitted to them, this is a bureaucratic, advisory rôle. To be lawful the Trial of all crimes must in every case be by legem terræ common law Trial by Jury. Not only are the justices’ interpretations and rulings on the law never binding on a Jury, but in every Trial by Jury, sine qua non, the Jurors are the judges; the Jurors alone judge and decide on the admissibility of evidence and the legality of the statutes.
~The common law Jury forms the People’s Supreme Legislature and Judicature.
THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS QUO.
Anyone acquainted with the process of law in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere today, will see how far removed the practices of courts are from the ideals and legally binding stipulations of those nations’ Constitutions. Today, every single one of the above requirements definitive of Trial by Jury (including judging on the facts of the case) is illegally forbidden, interfered with and/or obstructed by the ‘judges’.
Labyrinthine deceits of modern usurpation inhabit the politicians’ statute book, which bears no resemblance and pays no respect to universal common laws of truth, justice, liberty, and equality before the law. Common law is inserted into the Constitution to protect the people from government abuse of power. Common law legally binds government and controls the government’s modus operandi. As distinct from despotism and barbarism, this common law is the definitive basis of civilisation, democracy and legitimate government, sine qua non.
The Juror’s Duty Is Simple.
It should be remembered that the Juror’s duty is uncomplicated: ‘guilt’ of a crime can only be pronounced where the accused’s act was a deliberate, premeditated one of malice aforethought. Similar judgements are the daily fact of life in commonplace human interactions. We make such appraisals frequently... "Is this person behaving in a way that is dishonest or malign?" "Is that person telling the truth?" "Why are they doing that?" "Are these people genuine?" (Again, note that 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.)
Regardless of the intricacies of evidence (and it is always for the prosecution to present a clear case), in cases of fraud the contrast between genuine innocence and malicious motivation is especially easy for jurors to discern. Only ulterior mens rea, i.e., criminal intent, lies behind politicians and other individuals advocating denial to the accused of Trial by Jury and the handing over of fraud cases to ‘trial-by-government-judge’.
Laws Require To Be Just.
The inscribed governmental statute laws require to be just and simple if they are to be met with unanimous approbation from juries. Again, it is always for the plaintiff to make his cause clear.
If explanation of a law is ever necessary and disputation over its fairness and hence its very legality arises, then this explication requires to be performed equally by plaintiff and defendant and/or defence and prosecution counsel, not exclusively by the convenor (judge).
Juries decide on the justice, validity and applicability of laws in every act of enforcement. Common law, being exclusively the product of the sense of fairness, natural law and justice of the ordinary people, is known almost intuitively to people everywhere. With a modicum of thought, people realise that justice makes its case plain to sane adults in all times and places.
Common Law Trials by Jury Do Not Drag On.
With the Jury deciding on the admissibility of the evidence and supervising the process, Trial by Jury brings justice which is fair, swift and sure. Prosecution counsel must marshal the evidence to present an undelayed, forthright, straightforward comprehensible case; not the protracted lucrative charade in which lawyers feign and wallow today.
Citizens involved in Jury Duty embody authority of the country and its people: they are properly respected and compensated.
Crime Is Diminished.
Brutish intrusions by the state and its personnel into innocent citizens’ lives are subject to prosecution and, where appropriate, to just retribution. Vexatious regulations are obliterated; life, liberty, property and rights are held in the hands of the people themselves (not subject to arbitrary government intervention). Crime and litigation in the society run by ultimate rule of the people deciding the law as Jurors, are significantly diminished. The mass of partisan, inequitable and venal legislation (extant today), is duly annulled, unenforceable and generally expunged. Hence, the number of prosecutions is greatly reduced.
The shameful, unjust charade which takes place in the courtroom today is not and never could be described as Trial by Jury nor as a 'justice system'. With regard to the e-mail header "Shame on Shaming the police," in the absence of the genuine Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System for all disputed causes, civil, criminal and fiscal, the government apparatus is today operating unlawfully and illegally.
We forget the lessons of history at our peril. The right to the Trial by Jury is the defence and basis upon which all other rights depend. Those who are not educated to the democratic requirements of Equal Justice are fated to lose their liberty and rights. If Trial by Jury is not soon restored, statism, tyranny, crime and strife will spread to all aspects of life.
|
