How does Trial by Jury Protect Democratic Rights & Freedoms?
Thank you for supporting this objection to The Courts and Tribunals Bill which is a culmination of understandings learnt as a lay person since the Pandemic which led me to question, ‘What are my rights?’ and ‘Where are they?’.
I have a background in healthcare where the principles of Do No Harm and Consent are foundational.
Although I could tell something was fundamentally flawed when medical procedures were being mandated, these actions challenged something deeper in myself, something I would now term my sense of Sovereignty: that I have full agency over my own affairs, that no law nor mandate can make me impose my beliefs onto others and, by the same sense, that No One can impose their beliefs onto me.
This, in essence, demonstrates the difference between Trial by Jury the and the convoluted legislation we have been conditioned since birth to hold with ultimate regard.
I've come to learn that, for legislation to be truly just and of service to its people, it must be subject to human conscience - it must be able to withstand a jury of twelve consciences, the very people who are to be governed by such legislation.
Over the coming weeks, I hope to share the essential principles I’ve learnt as a lay person which have brought a more complete understanding of what a true democracy might be. Without years of training to attempt to understand complex legislation, I feel I can now judge for myself if something is in alignment with our common law constitution or not. It is the universal understanding of these principles which naturally preserves our rights and freedoms.
Are you Sovereign?
The following was provided by William Keyte of Common Law Constitution.org. It raises fundamental points for reflection, bringing with it a deeper understanding on the critical role of juries.
How to demonstrate our sovereignty
Human sovereignty is always a reality but we have to realise it.
Human sovereignty cannot be manifested by an individual automatically.
Sovereignty has to be embodied by the individual and the collective*
The collective* embodies a sovereignty by coming to the realisation that it must govern itself through a Natural Law tribunal
(*beware of collectives. Are they a group of people who are the same, or are they a group of individuals, acting in their sovereignty?)
A society demonstrates its sovereignty by demanding self-governance and not submitting to an authority.
An individual demonstrates and embodies sovereignty by paying attention to their own logic and reasoning, adopting a high level of critical thinking and developing a clear sense of natural morality.
An individual’s sovereignty can be seen in their level of self-governance.
The measure of an individual’s sovereignty is their desire to become self-aware.
The measure of a collective’s sovereignty (a society) is in their propensity and desire to self-reflect and take responsibility.
A society or community’s health can be seen through the people’s adoption of self-responsibility and self-governance.
A society that submits to authority is unhealthy and demonstrates no sovereignty.
Therefore, human sovereignty is a fundamental requirement for a healthy society
Where is your line?
A series of questions to demonstrate this, in practice:
Can the government do anything it likes?
Is parliament sovereign… can it legislate anything it likes?
If the government passed a piece of legislation which said that all people who live in a house with an odd number must go and take their neighbour's possessions at the next even numbered house…. And if you didn’t you could be imprisoned for life… would you do it?
If NO then you’ve just proved that the government cannot do anything it likes, there is a line you would not cross, regardless of any legislation…. So… where is your line?
If YES… then you are an order follower… and this is exactly what was outlawed at Nuremberg.
Any time you follow an order of someone in ‘authority’ against what your conscience says… then you are an order follower.
Read Article 39 Magna Carta….
The King (the administration) can only move against a citizen If a jury of that person’s peers has decided that they can…
It doesn’t say a judge decides the law and the jury the facts….
It says the judgment of the peers… the jury… so they decide EVERYTHING.
So… if you have refused to follow a piece of government legislation because it crosses your line, and you are prosecuted for that, the government can only punish you for that transgression of the legislation if a jury of your peers says so.
Do you think a jury of your peers would decide that you are guilty and should go to prison because you did not take their neighbour's posessions?
Do you think it would make sense that the state-paid judge at the trial should tell the jury that if they are sure you did not take your neighbour's possessions that they must find you guilty?
Do you see how the jury must, therefore, have to decide according to conscience whether or not you have committed a crime (caused harm) regardless of what legislation, case law or the judge tells them?
Can you see how a jury acting according to conscience is the mechanism by which the people govern themselves?
Can you think why it might be that the judges don’t tell the jury this and why the government is currently threatening to further restrict our access to trial by jury?
If you can identify your line then you know that the government legislation is NOT the law.