THE RIGHT OF JURORS TO JUDGE ON THE JUSTICE OF LAW
Kenn D’Oudney; Democracy Defined

(This eloquent excerpt from Kenn’s correspondence underscores the sovereignty of the jury, the ability of the jury to strike down statute in the interests of justice, and the supremacy of that natural justice over statute, and the universality of that justice. Such is the way the Common Law system ought to operate, – Ed)

The Commemorative Plaque, Old Bailey Law Courts, London (reads);
“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury, Thos (Thomas) Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final Verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established The Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their Conviction.”

Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania. Jurors do not decide the Verdict simply on whether evidence indicates a person “broke the law.”
Rather than “establishing” the duty and right of Jurors to decide the verdict according to their convictions (as the wording goes on the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque), in fact, Chief Justice Vaughan’s ruling merely recognised this perpetually requisite citizen’s duty to judge the law, definitive of Trial by Jury.

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. Furthermore, there was no desire in the defendants to deny their brave stand. Their outspoken behaviour at trial indicated the converse. The evidence against them was incontrovertible.
What the defendants disputed was ‘guilt’: that is to say, they were Not Guilty because crime is the committing of an act of injustice with malice aforethought. It is not simply the act of breaking the law, for the unjust law is itself the embodiment of crime, and, the upholding or enforcing of any unjust law is a criminal act per se; and recognised as such by domestic and international law; ref. Campaign info. p, 2.
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.

Regarding the Common Law on Secularity, and why legem terra Trial by Jury is the universal Justice System.
The legal and societal term Natural Law is a sense of right and wrong which arises inevitably from the constitution of the mind of man. The people’s legem terra common law ofthe land is derived from natural law and justice and Equity, the natural Sense of Fairness and conscience by which disinterested, randomly-selected people in a jury situation judge. Natural law and justice are eternal and universal; not geographically or culturally constrained, nor limited to a set time.

Natural law does NOT refer to the laws of nature, the laws which science aims to describe. Nor is it to be confused with the opposite phenomenon, “the law of the jungle,” which is the rule for surviving by the use of force to succeed in a hostile or competitive environment. This latter is quite the reverse of natural law and justice.

The supreme secular morality of natural law pre-dates all the great religions: it is timeless, permanent and applicable to judicature in a universal context. It is antecedent to the invention of writing, the Epic of Gilgamesh; the hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic scripts of Ancient Egypt; the Torah; The Pharmacopoeia of Emperor Shen Nung; the Bhagavad Gita; the Old and New Testaments; the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and other texts.
It is from natural law that all the universal, eternal commandments (i.e., rules of action) of common law derive, such as:
“Thou shalt do no murder,”
“Thou shalt not steal,”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness ”

THE RIGHT OF JURORS TO JUDGE ON THE JUSTICE OF LAW
Kenn D’Oudney; Democracy Defined
(This eloquent excerpt from Kenn’s correspondence underscores the sovereignty of the jury, the ability of the jury to strike down statute in the interests of justice, and the supremacy of that natural justice over statute, and the universality of that justice. Such is the way the Common Law system ought to operate, – Ed)

The Commemorative Plaque, Old Bailey Law Courts, London (reads);
“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury, Thos (Thomas) Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final Verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established The Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their Conviction.”

Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania. Jurors do not decide the Verdict simply on whether evidence indicates a person “broke the law.”
Rather than “establishing” the duty and right of Jurors to decide the verdict according to their convictions (as the wording goes on the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque), in fact, Chief Justice Vaughan’s ruling merely recognised this perpetually requisite citizen’s duty to judge the law, definitive of Trial by Jury.
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. Furthermore, there was no desire in the defendants to deny their brave stand. Their outspoken behaviour at trial indicated the converse. The evidence against them was incontrovertible.
What the defendants disputed was ‘guilt’: that is to say, they were Not Guilty because crime is the committing of an act of injustice with malice aforethought. It is not simply the act of breaking the law, for the unjust law is itself the embodiment of crime, and, the upholding or enforcing of any unjust law is a criminal act per se; and recognised as such by domestic and international law; ref. Campaign info. p, 2.
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.
Regarding the Common Law on Secularity, and why legem terra Trial by Jury is the universal Justice System.
The legal and societal term Natural Law is a sense of right and wrong which arises inevitably from the constitution of the mind of man. The people’s legem terra common law ofthe land is derived from natural law and justice and Equity, the natural Sense of Fairness and conscience by which disinterested, randomly-selected people in a jury situation judge. Natural law and justice are eternal and universal; not geographically or culturally constrained, nor limited to a set time.
Natural law does NOT refer to the laws of nature, the laws which science aims to describe. Nor is it to be confused with the opposite phenomenon, “the law of the jungle,” which is the rule for surviving by the use of force to succeed in a hostile or competitive environment. This latter is quite the reverse of natural law and justice.
The supreme secular morality of natural law pre-dates all the great religions: it is timeless, permanent and applicable to judicature in a universal context. It is antecedent to the invention of writing, the Epic of Gilgamesh; the hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic scripts of Ancient Egypt; the Torah; The Pharmacopoeia of Emperor Shen Nung; the Bhagavad Gita; the Old and New Testaments; the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and other texts.
It is from natural law that all the universal, eternal commandments (i.e., rules of action) of common law derive, such as:
“Thou shalt do no murder,”
“Thou shalt not steal,”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness ”

The Paradigm of Judicature: “Do unto others as you would they do unto you.”

THE RIGHT OF JURORS TO JUDGE ON THE JUSTICE OF LAW
Kenn D’Oudney; Democracy Defined
(This eloquent excerpt from Kenn’s correspondence underscores the sovereignty of the jury, the ability of the jury to strike down statute in the interests of justice, and the supremacy of that natural justice over statute, and the universality of that justice. Such is the way the Common Law system ought to operate, – Ed)

The Commemorative Plaque, Old Bailey Law Courts, London (reads);
“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury, Thos (Thomas) Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final Verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established The Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their Conviction.”

Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania. Jurors do not decide the Verdict simply on whether evidence indicates a person “broke the law.”
Rather than “establishing” the duty and right of Jurors to decide the verdict according to their convictions (as the wording goes on the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque), in fact, Chief Justice Vaughan’s ruling merely recognised this perpetually requisite citizen’s duty to judge the law, definitive of Trial by Jury.
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. Furthermore, there was no desire in the defendants to deny their brave stand. Their outspoken behaviour at trial indicated the converse. The evidence against them was incontrovertible.
What the defendants disputed was ‘guilt’: that is to say, they were Not Guilty because crime is the committing of an act of injustice with malice aforethought. It is not simply the act of breaking the law, for the unjust law is itself the embodiment of crime, and, the upholding or enforcing of any unjust law is a criminal act per se; and recognised as such by domestic and international law; ref. Campaign info. p, 2.
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.
Regarding the Common Law on Secularity, and why legem terra Trial by Jury is the universal Justice System.
The legal and societal term Natural Law is a sense of right and wrong which arises inevitably from the constitution of the mind of man. The people’s legem terra common law ofthe land is derived from natural law and justice and Equity, the natural Sense of Fairness and conscience by which disinterested, randomly-selected people in a jury situation judge. Natural law and justice are eternal and universal; not geographically or culturally constrained, nor limited to a set time.
Natural law does NOT refer to the laws of nature, the laws which science aims to describe. Nor is it to be confused with the opposite phenomenon, “the law of the jungle,” which is the rule for surviving by the use of force to succeed in a hostile or competitive environment. This latter is quite the reverse of natural law and justice.
The supreme secular morality of natural law pre-dates all the great religions: it is timeless, permanent and applicable to judicature in a universal context. It is antecedent to the invention of writing, the Epic of Gilgamesh; the hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic scripts of Ancient Egypt; the Torah; The Pharmacopoeia of Emperor Shen Nung; the Bhagavad Gita; the Old and New Testaments; the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and other texts.
It is from natural law that all the universal, eternal commandments (i.e., rules of action) of common law derive, such as:
“Thou shalt do no murder,”
“Thou shalt not steal,”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness ”

The Paradigm of Judicature: “Do unto others as you would they do unto you.”

This secular commandment stands in perpetual judgement over all the acts and motives of humans as individuals and in groups or collectively. It provides the Universal Juror at all times and in all places with the means for ascertaining whether the act of the accused was malicious, benign or neutral; whether it was definitively innocent or criminal: an act of injustice committed with malice aforethought; i.e., guilty.
The good news is that the controversies of theism, religions and spiritualism, which do divide humans, do not belong in the secular courtroom of Equal Justice for they are of no relevance whatsoever in consideration of The Universal Secular Paradigm of Judicature, “Do unto others as you would they do unto you.
The natural or universal law and its constitutionally-emplaced common law derivative (viz. Legem Terra inscribed as Articles into the 1215 Great Charter Constitution, of which the sole justice system is the judgement of peers: the Trial by Jury), govern government, and inclusively and impartially judge all the acts and motives of men and women everywhere, in all times and places,

This secular commandment stands in perpetual judgement over all the acts and motives of humans as individuals and in groups or collectively. It provides the Universal Juror at all times and in all places with the means for ascertaining whether the act of the accused was malicious, benign or neutral; whether it was definitively innocent or criminal: an act of injustice committed with malice aforethought; i.e., guilty.
The good news is that the controversies of theism, religions and spiritualism, which do divide humans, do not belong in the secular courtroom of Equal Justice for they are of no relevance whatsoever in consideration of The Universal Secular Paradigm of Judicature, “Do unto others as you would they do unto you.
The natural or universal law and its constitutionally-emplaced common law derivative (viz. Legem Terra inscribed as Articles into the 1215 Great Charter Constitution, of which the sole justice system is the judgement of peers: the Trial by Jury), govern government, and inclusively and impartially judge all the acts and motives of men and women everywhere, in all times and places,

The Paradigm of Judicature: “Do unto others as you would they do unto you.” [ IN THE CONTEXT OF LOVING GOD- THE WHOLENESS OF NATURE.

Note. The Golden rule – do unto others as you would they do unto you
          The Green rule – do unto the Earth as you would have it do unto you
          The Double Commitment binds them together as – Love ‘God’ and love ‘all right & more-than-human relationships’.]

This secular commandment stands in perpetual judgement over all the acts and motives of humans as individuals and in groups or collectively. It provides the Universal Juror at all times and in all places with the means for ascertaining whether the act of the accused was malicious, benign or neutral; whether it was definitively innocent or criminal: an act of injustice committed with malice aforethought; i.e., guilty.

The good news is that the controversies of theism, religions and spiritualism, which do divide humans, do not belong in the secular courtroom of Equal Justice for they are of no relevance whatsoever in consideration of The Universal Secular Paradigm of Judicature, “Do unto others as you would they do unto you.

The natural or universal law and its constitutionally-emplaced common law derivative (viz. Legem Terra inscribed as Articles into the 1215 Great Charter Constitution, of which the sole justice system is the judgement of peers: the Trial by Jury), govern government, and inclusively and impartially judge all the acts and motives of men and women everywhere, in all times and places,