[patriots] FW: To Franz re: "Asking the right questions about the law," from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

From: annette rose smith <annette-rose-smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:17:15 +0100

From: campaign@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: fkurz33@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: To Franz re: "Asking the right questions about the law," from Kenn
d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 23:08:13 +0200

http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The
Democracy Defined Campaign
for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION
of
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.

THE DEMOCRACY DEFINED INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL
CAMPAIGN.
VERITAS, COGNITIO, IUSTITIA,
LIBERTAS.
Media
and General Enquiries: campaign@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kenn
d’Oudney, Mrs. Joanna d’Oudney & Astra d’Oudney.
CEO/Directors.
(Standard English Spelling)

ACTIVIST
MEMBERS from
all walks of life in
FIJI, NEPAL, SRI LANKA, SCOTLAND, AUSTRALIA,

CANADA, EIRE, INDIA, GERMANY, ULSTER, SOUTH AFRICA,
JORDAN, PAKISTAN,
FRANCE, THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND.
THE CAMPAIGN
PHILOSOPHY
is spread worldwide by its
Members.
The
Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics,
attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.)
and judges (U.S. & U.K.).

~

Dear Franz,
Greetings. Thank you for the e-mail. Herewith a response.

The writer, whoever he is, is actually asking the wrong questions!
All the best,
Kenn.
www.democracydefined.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Franz
Kurz

To: Campaign@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 9:36 AM
Subject: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LAW: Asking the right
questions

Hello Kenn,
hope you are well and in good mood reading and digesting The
Truth about the Law.
Regards
Franz

2015-05-21 22:05 GMT+02:00 Franz Kurz <fkurz33@xxxxxxxxx>:

http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/they-have-lied-to-us-about-the-courts-independence/

[Mine in blue.
KD.]

THE TRUTH
ABOUT THE LAW
[WRONG!]
Asking the right questions… is the answer.
They have lied to us about the Court’s
“Independence”
You will never be genuinely free, until you let go of your
illusions and face the truth.
The supreme court runs an event each year for people to learn
about our founding. The people are encouraged to “build their own
constitution” just like they did in Philly, complete with the checks and
balances to hold it in place. There’s a $25,000.00 prize sponsored each
year for the first to complete one that actually works using the same
components we have in our documents. Just like this guy, nobody can ever
do it. But nobody ever seems to catch on to the whole game.
We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have
this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and
balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The
bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is
indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over
our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP.
Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an
independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you
will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the
independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in
your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem
is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken.
You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s
begin.
Our entire system relies on the court being able to keep the
government within its limited constitutional bounds by saying no.
Wrong!

The courts (judges) are NOT the final check and balance. In the
Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury, the Juror decides on
the legality, justice, effects, validity and need for a law; viz. U.S.
Constitution, Article 3; Section Two.

The Jury in Trial by Jury is is the final, SUPREME complete
check on the administration of the law. See MADISON himself on this very
issue, quoted in the essay which is accessed from the link below. Madison
was co-author of the Constitution.

Definition. Sovereignty, pre-eminence; the supreme and independent power
expressed through the making and enforcing of the
laws.

See the following extract from
DEMOCRACY DEFINED ISBN 9781902848228, by
Kenn d’Oudney.

LEGAL DEFINITIONS UNALTERABLE AT CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON
LAW.

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 defined and prescribed by the
1215 Great Charter Constitution as the sole 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.

(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’ & ‘Hung Jury,’ ‘The
Meaning behind the Dysphemism ‘Rogue Juror,’ and ‘The Divisibility of
Sovereignty.’ Also see section on King Alfred the Great regarding
condemnation of judges who interfere, tamper, in the Trial by
Jury.
Thirdly, each individual Juror has power to annul the prosecution by
finding the accused Not Guilty without obligation to disclose any
reason for doing so.
See exemplification of this given by the Old Bailey
Commemorative Plaque re the Penn and Mead Trial by Jury and, in finding
the Verdict, the Chief Justice’s Ruling on the Jury’s independent power
over the law and the directions of the judge.
Also see the statement of President John Adams, lawyer, in
Chapter One.
Also see US v Moylan, and the DC Court of
Appeals.
Fourthly, having sworn to “do justice” (see Common Law Juror’s Oath;
VIII; The Justice
System), it is axiomatic* that authoritative judgement on the justice
and legitimacy of the law which is being processed for enforcement at
Trial by Jury is a specific Constitutional Duty binding on the
Jurors.
See following section on ‘The Justice System.’ The modern
government-altered jurors’ ‘oaths’ are illegitimate on numerous grounds,
and inequitably ex parte [one-sided, prejudiced; with a bias]. Also see
section on Juror’s Duties re judging of the admissibility of
Evidence.
*Definition.
axiomatic, adjective, self-evident; accepted fact;
unquestionable.
Fifthly, whenever the law itself is unjust the act of its
enforcement is crime per se. For a juror NOT to annul in those
circumstances is the criminal
act of Abetment of the Crime of Malicious Prosecution. Jurors absolutely
must judge the law.
It is the duty of the jurors to ensure that unjust ‘law’ is
struck down and the accused tried thereunder is pronounced Not Guilty.
This is the dutiful act of Annulment by Jury; a principal Duty of the
Jurors necessitated in the preclusion
of the crime of tyranny, and definitive of Trial by Jury, sine qua
non.
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; and thirdly, why the Sentence of Curse and Excommunication
was prescribed for the slightest infringement of Magna Carta by the lords
spiritual, assisted by monarch and lords temporal; see Magna Carta,
Chapter Five.
REGARDING THE DIVISIBILITY OF SOVEREIGNTY:
If the elected body imposes any law or regulation which is
inconsistent with the People’s sense of justice and fairness, it requires
annulment by jurors in Trial by Jury, even by a single juror
(unanimity required), who may be part of a minority race or group
unfairly
discriminated against by the law. In this manner, through the Trial by
Jury, sovereignty not only resides with the people as a collective whole,
but importantly, it is also embodied ‘divisibly’ with every adult
citizen.
Trial by Jury is thereby the active principle of democracy: the people
rule.
Trial by Jury is mankind’s model justice system and it is the
definitive Foundation of Civilisation. That is to say, adoption of
democratic Trial by Jury differentiates civilisation from the barbarity
of
despotism.
Whether a society is a monarchy, a theocracy or a republic,
what converts it from a despotism (a tyrannical, uncivilised state) to a
democracy (the civilised state with Trial by Jury operating) is the
instalment and implementation of the Trial by Jury through which the
people rule. (The word democracy does not replace the word republic. Of
course, the republic remains a republic; but it is both definitively and
constitutionally a democratic
republic.)
Where the society implements Trial by Jury with all its common
law stipulations and criteria which exact conformity to the Principles of
Equal Justice, then the society is a democracy. This is as opposed to a
totalitarian monarchy, republic or theocracy wherein the dominant
government personnel iniquitously suppress the people’s right to the
Universal Secular Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury Justice
System.
[Quote ends.]
As a result of that
writer's fatal misconstruing of where supreme authority
over the law is placed by the Constitution; i.e., it is invested in the
Jurors in Trial by Jury, the rest of the assumptions in this article are
way off-beam.

Whilst administrative
courts (justices, judges) may fulfil the function 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 consider such evidence as is submitted to
them, this is a bureaucratic, advisory rôle. To be lawful and
legal the Trial of all crimes (unimpeachable) 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 the jurors are the judges; the
Jurors alone interpret and judge the law itself; the admissibility of
evidence; the motive of the accused--whether definitively innocent or of
malice aforethought (guilt)--and the legality of the
statutes.
The Jury in Trial by Jury forms the People’s
Supreme Legislature and Judicature.
That was why they supposedly had to be “independent”. In other
words, the entire purpose for having an independent judiciary is to be
sure that the court felt free to say NO to a government that overstepped
its constitutional bounds.

http://i0.wp.com/www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/herding-cats.jpg
Yes means allowing the other branches to do things they are not
constitutionally permitted to do. No means that the court steps up and
says, you can’t do that, it is not constitutional. You don’t need to be
independent in order to say yes. There is no controversy in a YES.
Everyone is Always free to say yes! The key is setting up a system where
the court feels free to say NO.
Think about it like this. Say you want to set up a trust to
provide for your child. If you make the administrator of the trust
dependent on the child to keep his position, then he is much more likely
to say yes when he shouldn’t. But not at all likely to say no when he
should say yes.
And the flip side is that if you make the administrator
independent of the child he is much more likely to say no to the child
when he should, but you run the risk that the power goes to his head and
he denies the child access to funds that the child should be getting. You
see? There is no controversy in saying yes, only in saying no.
So an Independent judiciary’s advantage is that it is free to
say no to the other branches in order to protect the peoples’ rights
because they cannot be removed. But the danger is that they will say no
too often and not allow the government to exercise authority it in fact
has. It is essential you understand this distinction.
Here’s another way to think about it. Whatever action the
government takes is either constitutional or not constitutional. And the
court can either uphold an action or strike it down.

http://i1.wp.com/www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/santa-unfair.jpg
The dependent court is more likely to uphold actions of all
sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional. The Independent court is
more likely to strike down actions of all sorts, both constitutional and
unconstitutional.
There is no controversy that the court was made “independent”,
ostensibly, to protect the individuals’ rights from being trampled and to
keep the government within its bounds, i.e. to say NO. Here is quote from
Federalist 78 on the topic.
If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the
bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments,
this
consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of
judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that
independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful
performance of so arduous a duty.
I could go on and on with quotes talking about the foundational
principle of independence and staying within the constitution etc etc.
But
I am not going to waste your time. If you want to brush up on the idea,
then go read the sales brochure number 78 I just quoted from, or pick up
any high school government book. What I have said is not controversial.
It
is the supposed heart of our system.
A dependent judiciary’s advantage is that it is responsive to
whoever controls it but its disadvantage is that it tends to rubber stamp
things. The independent court says no a lot but you can’t control it. It
is critical to understand this distinction.
Here is an important question to ask yourself when doing an
analysis of the court’s performance. Can you think of a single time that
the court struck down a law that was even arguably
constitutional?

http://i1.wp.com/www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pile-of-papers.jpg
I could not come up with a single example. I doubt anyone can,
because the examples don’t exist! Nothing even close. Of the very few
laws
they have struck down as unconstitutional, about 176 or so, there really
was no question. The laws were laughably unconstitutional. Of course the
court has struck down a few laws. It does happen. They have to in order
to
keep the long con running and to keep the illusion of the system’s
“checks
and balances” going.
But my question was, are there any laws that were struck down
that were arguably constitutional? that is a very different issue. That
is
the issue that goes to independence. The few times they have struck laws
down, they were so far over the line it was ridiculous.
Now think how many 10,000’s of laws have been passed and think
how far beyond the constitutional limits the court has allowed the whole
system to expand. There is example after example of the court upholding
laws that are clearly NOT constitutional but none striking down laws that
are even arguably constitutional! Because they do not behave as an
independent body.
It is essential that you understand the distinction and
analysis I just made between what the danger is between independent and
dependent courts before moving on.
Now think about any controversial issue. Abortion, gun rights,
Obamacare, busing, drug laws, special required light bulbs, toilet
flushing, EPA, FDA, go on down the list. What is the PROBLEM with any of
those issues? Is it that the court strikes down too many laws when it
shouldn’t? NO.

http://i1.wp.com/www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/no-sex-pajamas.jpg
The problem with the court is always the same. It says YES TOO
OFTEN. Yes to the expansion of the government beyond the limits of the
constitution. The exact OPPOSITE problem we are supposed to have with an
independent judiciary.
Think about how absurd this whole thing is. We have a court
that never strikes down laws as unconstitutional when it should,
constantly upholds laws that are clearly NOT constitutional and yet it is
protected from removal under the guise of it being independent. Then we
are told the brilliance of our system is the set of checks and balances
that all revolve around the independence of the court. And the
brainwashing is so deep and so effective that people actually DEFEND the
system!
A dependent judiciary can be easily removed. That is why they
are referred to as dependent. That is the advantage of having them be
dependent. You can control them by easily getting rid of them so they can
never do much damage! The downside is they never say NO when they
should.
With the independent, you can’t get rid of them. They can do a
lot of damage, but they are supposed to say no. But look at the reality.
We have the worst of both the independent and dependent
judiciary.
The problem with the courts that we have is UNRELATED to their
independence or dependence WITHIN the system. And thus the solution has
nothing to do with its independence! That is a DISTRACTION. The problem
is
the illusion that any ONE ENTITY can EVER check itself!!! Remember, when
the government’s scope of control grows the COURT’S SCOPE of power grows.
So when the court “allows” the government to grow. It is allowing its own
power to grow! Thus the court has an inescapable conflict of
interest.
The conflict of interest is where the problem lies, even if we
put aside corruption. And the conflict of interest is complete and it
cannot be solved inside the system they have given us. The final say must
come from OUTSIDE of the Federal system. Without that change, there will
never be any protection for the people.

http://i2.wp.com/www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/prisoners-in-a-cell.jpg
Now do you see why those in charge endlessly discuss the
supposed brilliance of the federal system concerning an “independent”
court and checks and balances? It is to confuse you and convince you of
something that isn’t true. They have created an entity with chinese walls
that can never work and they tell you it is the cornerstone of the
foundation!
The only thing the independence of the court actually does in
our system is provide cover to grow the government! It gives an illusion
of a check. And the people allow it to “be final” because it is
supposedly
“independent”. If the people saw the court for what it actually is, which
is “dependent’, as I have just shown you, then the people would not be
okay with it being final because they would know it was a rubber stamp
for
the other arms of the same government.
All the talk of the brilliance of the checks and balances and
the independence of the court is just a show.
Why have you never been taught to think about the issue in the
terms I just showed you? Because the government controls education and
the
media are all on the same side. Why are the questions I have asked and
the
analysis I just made NEVER brought up by the so called constitutional
scholars? Why is it never part of the “liberty movement” or the “back to
the conjobstitution” movement?
Because those movements are not designed to actually DO
anything about the REAL problems as I have told you and told you. They
are
there to drain off your time. Do you see that the concepts they push can
never succeed because they don’t even discuss the real problems. They act
as though the holy founding documents are something they are not. That
our
“independent” judiciary is ESSENTIAL to our FREEDOM when it is not
actually independent and it is in fact the key to our enslavement! Quite
simply, they act as though the system is something it is not.

http://i0.wp.com/www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cat-meme.jpg
I have showed you that the courts should not be making non
unanimous decisions.
I have showed you that they create powers where there are
none.
I have showed you that they don’t have the power to make
something constitutional.
Now I have showed you that that the court is not in any way
acting independently. The emperor has no clothes my friend. He never
does.
They just lie to us non stop from cradle to grave and do whatever they
want because the people allow it.
Until the people wake up and stop romanticizing the founding
and the constitution and our “institutions” as though they are something
they are not, there will never be real change. Each person must
re-educate themselves. Starting with what I
try and show them.
I am done for today. I can only have so much hypocrisy at one
sitting… doctor’s orders. Something about me having a stroke if I keep
going. I Hope you learned something. Maybe you will be able to laugh the
next time you see some schmexpert from Harvard talking about the
independent court and all the importance of keeping it that way. It is
just a lie. An obvious, sad, and silly lie. Nothing more.
Take care my fellow inmate and tell someone the truth about the
law.

"Better never to vote at all than vote for a person who does
not make EQUAL JUSTICE the prime aim of government by
RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of Constitutional
Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury."
Click
to read about the Juror's Powers in the

authentic
Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System.

Kenn d'Oudney is the author of books and
essays including the following:
Kenn d'Oudney est auteur de livres et essais
y compris les suivants:
Kenn d'Oudney ist Autor von Büchern
und Essays einschließlich
der folgenden:

MAGNA CARTA, THE GREAT CHARTER
CONSTITUTION;

freely downloadable
information about pan-European legem terræ common
law, the Law of the Land, whose central tenet and sole justice
system is the all-powerful People's Trial by Jury Courts, defining the
true European and pan-Occidental
Constitution.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

"Thank you for
your excellent work on Magna Carta. What a masterly
exposition."
JOHN GOURIET, Chairman, Defenders
of the Realm; Battle for Britain
Campaign supported by The Duke of Wellington; Edward Fox, OBE,
and Frederick Forsyth,
CBE.

"Kenn,
Your
rebuttal is masterly. Your essay is a very good
read."
ROBIN TILBROOK, Chairman
& Party Leader; English Democrat
Party.

"Thank you so much
for this contribution. It is very much appreciated."
ASHLEY
MOTE, MEP (Member of the European Parliament); Vice-President, Alliance
of
Independent Democrats in
Europe.

"Thanks, Kenn. I've circulated
this."
SIMON RICHARDS, Campaign
Director; The Freedom Association; Founded by John Gouriet; the Viscount
de L’Isle, VC,
KG, PC; Ross McWhirter and Norris McWhirter,
CBE.

NEW! 2015 EDITION THE
REPORT, CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW ISBN
9781902848211, co-authored by Joanna d'Oudney; Foreword by a Nobel
laureate former Official Adviser to the U.S. government; endorsed by a
Professor of Physiology Fellow of the Royal Society, academics, doctors
(of a variety of disciplines) and judges (U.S. & U.K.);
Softback,
260 large-size pages.
http://www.democracydefined.org/1report.htm

SRC Publishing
Ltd., London, available from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk
“You have done a splendid job of producing a comprehensive
summary of the evidence documenting that the prohibition of the
production, sale and use of cannabis is utterly unjustified and produces
many harmful effects. Any impartial person reading your REPORT will
almost
certainly end up favouring the re-legalisation of
cannabis.”
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR MILTON FRIEDMAN, former
Economics’ Adviser to U.S. government; Author, video and TV series writer
and presenter; Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution and Peace; Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago.

“You represent a worthy part of the fight in many countries for
the logical and beneficial use of cannabis. I thank you for
that.”
PROFESSOR PATRICK D. WALL, M.D., Author; Professor
of Physiology, UMDS St. Thomas's (Teaching) Hospital, London; Fellow of
the Royal Society; DM, FRCP.

“I did enjoy
reading it. THE REPORT should contribute much.”
THE HON.
JONATHON PORRITT, Bt., former Adviser to U.K. government on Environment;
Author; Founder, Friends of the Earth; TV series writer and presenter.

“Very readable. It is an
important REPORT and I hope it is widely read.”
LESTER GRINSPOON, MD, Official
Adviser on Drugs to U.S. government (Clinton Administration), Professor
of
Psychiatry, Harvard University School of Medicine.
SRC Publishing Ltd.,
London, available from Amazon.com
and Amazon.co.uk

SO YOU THOUGHT
CANNABIS PROHIBITION HAS NO EFFECT UPON YOU ?

THE REPORT ISBN
9781902848211: Part (chapter) Two contains the unprecedented
(new) Cannabis Biomass Energy Equation
(CBEE; Modern Uses) which proves the clean-combusting
production-cost-free, i.e., FREE, cannabis
by-product pyrolytic CH3OH is the
immediate non-polluting, renewable, total world replacement
for fossils and uranium, whilst macro-cultivation simultaneously
significantly increases world production of staple seed
food (protein-rich; no relaxant in seed). The CBEE exposes the
bankowner-corporate-government monumental ulterior
motive behind fraudulent prohibition. 'Prohibition' is a venal,
cartel-fabricated subterfuge; a false fuel-energy MONOPOLY.

The CBEE Formulation proffers CH3OH oil-gasoline-type fuel combustion for
all
power-station, industrial, land, sea and air transportation and domestic
energy supply, with ZERO net
atmospheric increase of CO2. Viz. the CBEE thereby simultaneously
demonstrates
governments’ mendacity in their claims to wish to reduce carbon
emissions,
and proves the “eco” and “carbon taxes” to be fraudulent: a
criminal government imposture completely without foundation. The
misuse of exorbitant, world-economy-depressing fossils and uranium
as ‘fuel’ is potentially catastrophic, legally and economically
unjustifiable, and requires to be prohibited
forthwith.See
pyrolysis diagrams, photo, equation, etc.

Part Six of THE REPORT, PROHIBITION: THE
PROGENITOR OF CRIME.
"To
cause crime to occur is to be accountable for the crime, morally
and legally. To consent to any measure is to share responsibility
for its results."
Legalised, cannabis grows anywhere: the
benign herb's foliage and flowers come free or at an
insignificant price, but yielding no revenues to government and no
profits
to corporations. However, prohibition creates the Black Market:
the Economic Effects of Prohibition (scarcity + enforcement, etc.)
augment
"street" value by 3000% plus, making all Black Market associated crime
inevitable. The political commodities' prohibition, the
War on Drugs, rather that is to say, the politicians who pass and the
judiciaries who maintain the legislation engender (cause) and are
culpable for a significant
proportion of all crimes (official statistics) throughout the
West.

EXONERATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT; Official Empirical
Research; THE REPORT collates the medico-scientific Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of the government-funded clinical studies conducted by
world-respected research and academic institutions into non-toxic,
non-addictive natural herb cannabis (differentiated from pharmaceutical
laboratory toxic product THC). The investigations' empirical
evidence exonerates cannabis from all allegations of 'harm' and
'impairment' (including tests on simulated driving) exempting cannabis
from all legislative criteria of control ('prohibition'). All
citizens persecuted thereunder are due Amnesty and Restitution (as for
other Wrongful Penalisation).

MEDICATION: Efficacious in over 100 adverse
medical conditions (viz. Official Pharmacopoeias) including
applications which are life-saving, preserve eyesight,
Curative and/or Preventive, and with potential cheaply to
replace numerous lines of lucrative but ineffective, debilitating,
addictive, toxic pharmaceuticals, rendering massive financial
government-corporate ulterior revenue and profit
motive (trillions) behind apocryphal prohibition by
perjurious derogation. + Medical Case Histories.

Six Parts (chapters)
include expert documentary, legal, academic, scientific, technical,
medical, economic, social, criminological, philosophical evidence,
and that which is based on grounds of equity, vindicating all private
cultivation, trade, possession and use, and which further exposes perjury
and venality behind prohibition 'legislation', all acts of enforcement
constituting crime per se.

Part Seven, RESTORATION: JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION,
exposes corruption, ineptitude and injustice in the justice process;
examines Law: natural law, supreme secular legem terræ Constitutional
common law, treaties, statutes; quotes
presidents, judges, lawyers and chief justices.

THE REPORT is
regularly presented pre-trial by defendants to courts (judges) who
routinely forbid all Findings of Fact, evidence and defences which
"dispute the legality of the law" before the jury. The official
and expert evidence in THE REPORT establishes the apocryphal, illegal
nature of the legislation. THE REPORT quotes legal grounds (national and
international) which demonstrate numerous infractions of laws by the
prohibition legislation, and which show all acts of its enforcement to be
crime per se. All citizens persecuted thereunder are due Amnesty and
Restitution (as for other Wrongful Penalisation). This textbook
demonstrates in the law: injustice, inequity, invalidity, adverse
effects,
venal ulterior motive, perjury, fallacious derogation, and the
inherent illegality of law which creates the Black Market and
engenders all associated crime.
The outcomes
of this procedure of presenting THE REPORT as documentary evidence to the
judge have proved beneficial in the extreme for defendants. *Courts
require documentary evidence presented as the published
textbook (not copies or e-book).

TRIAL BY JURY: ITS
HISTORY, TRUE PURPOSE AND MODERN RELEVANCE ISBN
9781902848723,
with endorsements and edited section authored by U.S. lawyer Lysander
Spooner;
http://www.democracydefined.org/2trialbyjury.htm

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

MYTHS
DISPELLED: AN OPEN LETTER TO JAMES MADISON (descendant).
Essay:
read it and see for yourself how the Constitution's Justice System is
supposed to work to protect rights, liberty, property ownership
and use, and achieve equal justice for all and discover... THE ILLEGALITY
OF THE STATUS QUO.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

"Hi Kenn:
What a magnificent article! I
intend to incorporate parts of it into my speeches and writings.
Yours
in freedom and justice"
PROFESSOR
JULIAN HEICKLEN,

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

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

"Kenn d'Oudney is a
brilliant writer and researcher when it comes to Democracy and Trial by
Jury. The best source of common law is Kenn d'Oudney."

DR. JOHN WILSON,
Jury Rights’ Activist;

co-Founder & Chairman, Australian Common Law Party.

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

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

THE CONSTITUTION
TREATISE: Why the
d'Estaing ('European') Constitution-Treaty Is the Antithesis of
Democracy ISBN 9781902848747, see website for
endorsements by U.S. & U.K. cognoscenti;
http://www.democracydefined.org/5constitution.htm

"The
d’Oudney analysis is as insightful as it is comprehensive. It will stand
for years to come as the definitive critique of the European Constitution
prepared by Giscard d’Estaing and others. I look forward to sharing the
d’Oudney analysis with my colleagues."
HOWARD PHILLIPS,
Founder, U.S. Constitution Party; three-time presidential nominee;
Chairman, Conservative Caucus.
SRC
Publishing Ltd., London.

THE
PRINCIPAL TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACIES,

An
essay by Kenn d’Oudney.
Educational
Information Series EIS#28.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

DEMOCRACY DEFINED: ON THE ETYMOLOGY,
HISTORY AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORD DEMOCRACY; the Sciences of
Etymology, Semantics, Semasiology, and Philology determine whether your
country is a definitive democracy or your government is a
despotism. Viz. The word ‘democracy’ is widely abused
and ‘defined’ incorrectly: Democracy is a state of society realised
neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by
suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by
representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral
voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor
define democracy. This essay defines and summarises the unique
signification and inestimable value to the human race of genuine
Constitutional Democracy.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign.htm#democracy

9-11 TRUTH LINKS COMPENDIUM; exposition with select video analysis &
lectures; contributions by
professors, architects, scientists, Federal Aviation Authority experts,
former CIA, FBI, military and government officials, firemen, reporters
and
other eye-witnesses present; freely download this Compendium
which serves as an introduction to the subject, and as a source of
additional references for those already familiar with the 9/11 Truth
Movement.
Note: The URL addresses of these serious
documentaries do change from time to time. If you find the link broken,
then paste the TITLE of the video given in our Compendium into YouTube
and
find the documentary video that
way.

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

IN
PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIANS’ RIGHTS IN GENERAL AND THE RIGHTS OF HOME
OWNERS
AND FARMERS IN PARTICULAR.
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW
DICTIONARIES; part of
the contents of a forthcoming book to be published by SRC Publishing. It
is nevertheless, for the time being anyway, downloadable for
free;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

ON REFERENDA AND MAJORITY
RULE; part of the
contents of a forthcoming book downloadable for free;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

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

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

CHIEF JUSTICE VAUGHAN'S RULING; on Penn and Mead, perhaps the
most famous trial in history; Juror's Rights and Duty and photo of the
Old
Bailey Commemorative Plaque;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign2.htm#intervention

WHY THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANNOT DEFEND
YOU; consider some of
the judicable breaches of common law and Constitution to which modern
government resorts in order to enforce its inequitable, illegal,
and money-motivated statutes;

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign4.htm#lawyers

Further reading on the
website:
http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The not-for-profit
Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and
UNIVERSAL ADOPTION
of CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.
The Democracy Defined
Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of
jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges ( U.S .
& U.K.).
Join the Campaign ! Download and distribute free posters
and educational pamphlets.
Membership
gratis.

[patriots] FW: To Franz re: "Asking the right questions about the law," from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

Other related posts: