I am writing this article because, it seems, that most people don't know their rights, and I feel they should.
Perhaps I should point out, at the very start, I am not a Lawyer, or a Solicitor, or a Barrister, nor am I a Judge or a Magistrate, and I have absolutely no "Legal Qualifications" whatsoever to my name. If that admission, on my part, turns you away from reading what I have to say, then you'll miss the best bits.
You'll miss the fact that I'm much more qualified than all of those kinds of people put together. The reason I can say that is because, like those kinds of people, I'm a Human Being. This puts me on an equal footing with them. What makes me more qualified, is that I have actually taken the time, trouble, and effort, to think about "The System" - in particular "The System of Justice" in the United Kingdom.
Many people I talk to - in point of fact most people I talk to - are very dissatisfied with "The System", and particularly its "Justice" part. And they don't know what to do about it. They can only see the possibility of voting for "this Party", or "that Party" at Election Time. And then, once Election Time is over, absolutely nothing changes, does it?
Can we, therefore, step back a bit? And take a look through a historical telescope? The first Parliament, to be seriously recognised as such, was Simon de Montfort' s "Model Parliament" back in 1295. So, please take a breath for a second, and think about that. At the time of writing the year is 2012. If we subtract 1295 from 2012, we get the "years Parliament has been running". According to my calculator that's 717 years. So, "Parliament" has been in operation for 717 years, and most people are still " very dissatisfied with The System, and particularly the Justice part".
Does that not tell you something? Do you not think that - in 717 years - we should have been able to come up with a "System" that worked? And a "justice part" that worked?
Well, I (for one) think that we could, and that we should. And the reason I think that - is because WE DID! Once upon a time. It was actually just before the invention of Parliament. It was in the years between 1215 and 1295. Because it was then that solely The Common Law was recognised as The Law-of-the-Land. And what Parliament has done (and that includes every single one of them) - since that time - is to water down The Common Law, and try to negate as much of it as possible.
However, they (those who purport to run "The System") do have a massive problem. And that is simply because The Common Law, is exactly the same thing as Common Sense. And all Human Beings are borne with innate Common Sense. At least until their "elders & betters" manage to convert a child into "The System's way of thinking". That happens to us all. It has happened to you. I did it to my children. I converted them. I didn't realise what I was doing (I do now!). You've almost certainly done it to your children.
And, in doing so, we've had our lawful rights suppressed - actually hidden from us. And we've done that to our children.
But, surely, enough of that is enough? Surely it's time to re-recognise our rights? And start asserting them? But, of course, the first thing to do is to find out what they actually are. Well, actually that part is VERY easy. Because YOUR RIGHTS ARE BURIED IN YOUR HEART. You KNOW what is right and wrong. You KNOW what feels right and what doesn't! And that is what makes The Law.
It's precisely for this reason that - when you read this article - you'll end up thinking "what was said in that article does resonate". Because everything I've written here, and everything I write, and everything I say, is NOT telling the Reader/Listener anything they actually did not already know.
Know deep in their heart, that is.
All I have ever done is remind people of what they have forgotten. And that includes anyone reading this article.
So what's my point? My point is that we had - and do still have - a System that works. It's called The Jury System. It was documented, and thus defined, in a Treaty between King John and The People, called the Magna Carta 1215. One of the first Acts of the subsequent 1295 Model Parliament was to issue a Statute in 1297, called the Magna Carta Statute. This 1297 Statute 'somehow' lost some important provisions from the original Treaty of 1215. But that's OK, because the provisions in the original Treaty still stand behind - as a kind of 'backstop'. Subsequent Parliaments have watered down even more of the 1297 Statute - to the point where (I seem to recall) there are only about three of the original provisions remaining unrepealed. But that's OK as well - for the same reason - the original Treaty of 1215 still stands as a backstop.
And the Magna Carta Treaty of 1215 defined that the Law was applied by means of Juries. And what can a Jury do? It implements The Common Law. And that's precisely what it does. A JURY -IS- THE COMMON LAW. You see, you need to remember, that "Parliament" was created UNDER The Common Law. All Parliaments are, therefore, subject to The Common Law. And all Parliaments will always be subject to The Common Law. Because The Common Law = Common Sense, and we are all subject - at all times - to our innate Common Sense.
Do you see how it all fits together?
What is the job of a Jury? It is to listen to the EVIDENCE placed before it, and to attempt to use the Common Sense, of the 12 Members, to come to a Verdict based on the evidence it has heard. And, under The Common Law, the Verdict of a Jury is sacrosanct.
That is still the situation today. However, the current trend - and this has been going on for many decades - is to 'try to interfere' with the Verdict of a Jury. NOT BY YOU OR I! We would be held as "attempting to pervert the course of Justice" if we did that! Oh … no … WE MUSTN'T do that! But the prevailing trend is for Judges to feel THEY can do that. And they do. They try to persuade - usually during the Summing Up - the Jury should find the Accused "guilty" according to some provisions of some Statute.
Judges are, in point of fact, not allowed to do that. Because a Jury should be solely influenced by the evidence it has heard (sworn under penalty of perjury, of course), and should use the Common Sense of its Members to reach a Verdict. Whenever a Judge attempts to 'direct' a Jury's Verdict, that Judge is thoroughly guilty of "attempting to pervert the course of Justice".
But it happens all the time.
Nevertheless, there have been some startling cases, in the last few years, where Juries have resisted the Judge's onslaughts, and come to decent Verdicts. Thereby proving that (what is known as) "Jury Nullification" is still alive and kicking.
"Jury Nullification" is where a Jury decides that the provisions of a Statute are actually what is wrong, not what the Accused person did. And the Jury shows this by returning a "not guilty" Verdict - even when a Judge has attempted to persuade them to do the opposite - because the provisions of some Statute have been violated.
In this way, a Jury is capable of annulling the provisions of any Statute. All it takes is a Trial in front of a Jury (i.e. a Trial in a Crown or High Court), and the right Common Sense arguments presented to the Jury. (And it may also take telling the Judge that he or she does not have the right to interfere with the Jury's decision).
But that is, indeed, all it takes. I'll give you an example: Parking Tickets. Do you like getting Parking Tickets? Do you think that, if you were a Member of a Jury, and I could explain to you - in simple terms - just how unlawful the Parking Ticket scam was (and I can assure you that I could - easily - do that), you would return a Verdict of "not guilty" - knowing, of course, that by finding me "not guilty" you would also be finding yourself - and everyone else - "not guilty" if they refuse to pay Parking Tickets?
Or, would you still find me guilty - after I had explained to you precisely what a scam, fraud, and theft, it all was? What do you think? Would you go in for a bit of "Jury Nullification", or would you simply roll over, and play dead, because a Judge told you to do that?
We, The People, have the power to rid ourselves of anything we don't like. We never lost that power, we have just forgotten we have it. Via the Jury System that power is still very much alive and kicking. I repeat, all it takes is a Trial in front of a Jury (i.e. a Trial in a Crown or High Court), and the right Common Sense arguments presented to the Jury.
Those are my rights.
Those are your rights.
The right to be heard by a Jury of 12 of our peers, and have the actions we took judged solely by them.
Now you know why Governments - all Governments - POSITIVELY HATE the Jury System. And why they expend so much time, effort, and resources to put obstacles in the way of cases being heard by Juries. The IPCC, ACPO, CPS, Magistrate's Courts, County Courts, the whole gamut of obstacles.
To have become "The Government", they have had to jump through massive hoops (called "A General Election") and all that goes with it. They have to bow and scrape, to the Electorate, in order to become "The Government". Then, in order to create a Statute, they have to get 'experts' to prepare a 'Bill placed before Parliament'. This has to be sent through the various numbers of 'readings' in the Houses. They may have had to issue 'Papers' of various colours ("Green" and "White"). It is also discussed by various Committees, and possibly Sub-Committees, and possibly miscellaneous Quangos. Finally, after all that momentum and energy, it can eventually be passed on for 'automatic Royal Consent'.
And then - after all that - 12 ordinary, decent, fundamentally honest (as is the vast majority of the population), often non-partisan, people - sitting as Jury - can annul it all! All that time, that effort and those resources. At the stroke of a Verdict! Simply by applying their innate Common Sense! And that's "The Law", the Common Law, the "Law-of-the-Land". And it must always be so, while we can all use our Common Sense.
Here's the link to an example of it happening in practice.
As it says in this article: The last stand
against tyranny takes place in the Jury Box.
This is essential information regarding the
power that we all possess - if we are ever called to become a Juror OR ever in
the position of defending ourselves in front of a Jury.
Listen very carefully to what is said.
Especially the bit about “Jury Selection”, whereby you can be rejected from
a Jury if you make it known – up front – that you disagree
with the Judge. You have the RIGHT to SAY NOTHING (“Mental Reservation”),
and thereby enable yourself to be selected, and thus become a Jury Member.
Behind the closed doors of the Jury Room, you can then explain to the other 11
Members the exact situation, and their function, and their POWER.
The reason for this is pretty obvious. The Law is SOLELY necessary for Human Beings to live together in peace. That's its SOLE job. We all know what that entails. Thus we are all capable of applying our knowledge - irrespective of what any group of Politicians may decide (even if they were not utterly corrupt, that still applies).
Politicians, Police and Judiciary tell us "Don't take the Law into your own hands!".
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???? WTF????? IT'S -OUR- LAW, BROTHERS AND SISTERS ...NOT THEIRS!
IT'S IN OUR HANDS, TO START OF WITH!
We ask the Politicians to use their Common Sense, and they invariably ignore it.
We are the Judiciary to guard and apply OUR Law on a decent basis, and they frequently abuse us!
We ask the Police to guard and protect us, and they frequently trample on our faces with their Size 13s!
THE LAW IS -ALWAYS- IN OUR HANDS, and consequently it is ALWAYS IN THE HANDS of us as Jurors.
Our only problem arises from that fact that we've let it OUT OF OUR HANDS - to a great extent.
So it's time to scoop it back up again, and cherish it. AND NEVER LET IT GO AGAIN.
'Coz it's very, very, simple.
WE MUST GET OUT, FROM UNDER THE YOKE, OF "DOING WHAT OTHERS TELL US TO DO".
WE MUST GET BACK TO SIMPLY "DOING WHAT WE, OURSELVES, KNOW TO BE RIGHT".
Only The Truth will ever set you free. Bullshit won't.
Veronica, 12th May, 2012, updated October 2012