True Common Law Democracy

 

(The above speech by Neil Oliver was added as a post edit on 4th February 2023)

 

The following was written by William Keyte

Printable Download here

There is in society, a breathtaking level of confusion over the word Democracy and what it really means. It was not until I read one book, in particular (which I will mention at the end), that this confusion was cleared-up for me. And it is vital that these concepts are clarified because Democracy is, once you understand what it truly is, the most valuable thing we could possess in our society.

This confusion has come about through deliberate deception and is so deep-rooted that even those in society who should know better have fallen for it. Those in the political class and academia also appear to be confused - unless, of course, that is also part of the deception.

As many people are now aware, we are being lied-to on a colossal scale about so many things. As part of the information that is there to be discovered by those that are 'awakening', is the discovery of how states are supposed to function in a lawful and constitutional structure. And the aim of this brief article is to attempt to clarify for the reader how the United Kingdom (and other similar nations with historical connections to England) are supposed to function.

Broadly speaking, there are two groups in society, those that are completely unaware of the corruption, fraud and deception and those that have at least some awareness that things are not right and are on the road to discovering much of the information that has been kept from us.

Unfortunately, the deception over the word 'Democracy' appears to have entrapped both groups, not just the completely unaware, but also many of those in society who are more enlightened in their understanding of the fun and games going on behind the scenes.

For practical purposes, I will simply refer to these as Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 are those who are largely unaware of the deceptions and group 2 are those that are generally better versed in the conspiratorial reality of our society's history and current situation.

The Deceptions at Play

Group 1 (who are not aware of the fraud and corruption in society) believe that what is sold to them as Democracy is the real-deal. They have been programmed to believe that what is peddled as Democracy by the establishment is the only mechanism on offer to hold the government to account. What this group believes (the majority in society) is that Democracy is a system of local or more centralised elections which occur at regular intervals in which the people have the opportunity to vote for a representative. Supposedly, that representative will then (according to their manifesto) work to effect change in society through altering 'laws' to bring society more in alignment with the desires of those that voted for them. This system of voting is fundamentally what most in society (Group 1) believes is the mechanism through which the people influence the functioning of government and the nation's laws.

Group 2, those that are much more aware of the fraud and corruption at the top, are, more importantly, also aware of the serious limitations that Democracy appears to offer. They understand that voting representatives into 'power' at elections is not the way that the freedoms of the people are supposed to be preserved and the constraints placed upon the systems of the state. They are aware that the sovereignty of the people is gained not through voting but through some other constitutional mechanism and they have some vague notion that this is to be found in some other 'political system' outside the thing that has been sold to them as Democracy. A number of this group believe that the true limitations of government can be found in a Republic - that which was chosen by the founding fathers of the United States. This is also a trap because they are clamouring for something other than Democracy.

We have a sort of double deception at play here: both groups are being deceived but the confusions are different. The first group is unaware of the form in which their freedoms are to be preserved: the second group, whilst understanding that they are looking for a mechanism to keep their public servants in check, believes wrongly that this is to be found somewhere other than Democracy because they have been lied-to about what Democracy truly is.

Democracy cannot be compared with a Republic because they define different things about a state. In the same way, a Democracy cannot be compared with a Monarchy. But a Monarchy and a Republic can, indeed, be compared. Both a Republic and a Monarchy describe the 'style' of the head-of-state. The head-of-state in a republic is a president: the head-of-state in a monarchy is a king or queen. Either of these systems can, in addition, be a democracy (or not).

Democracy is something that is defined by a hidden magic ingredient that has absolutely nothing to do with either a Republic or a Monarchy. This magic component that I have, as yet, not described can be added to either of these systems making a Democratic Republic or a Democratic Monarchy (more often referred to as a Constitutionally-limited Monarchy). Without this magic ingredient that defines a true democracy, the system is despotism whether a Republic or a Monarchy. There is nothing inherently more prone to supporting individual freedoms in a Republic than there is in a Monarchy. Both are equally able to be truly democratic or despotic in nature.

So, both of the aforementioned groups have been deceived - but in different ways. Group 1 thinks that what is being touted as Democracy is to be treasured and believe that this will preserve their freedoms. Group 2 knows that there is something else much more powerful as an antidote to despotism and tyranny than voting in elections but have been tricked into looking for it elsewhere.

Official Democracy is Fake - Like everything else?

Real Democracy is all about the people having direct control and supremacy over government and its laws not just through voting but some other mechanism. Turning society into a competition through establishing a party-political election system in which the winning group's greater freedoms are gained merely at the expense of others that lose is not true Democracy. The real term for this is Suffrage.

The Magic Ingredient of True Democracy

Apologies for sounding a little evasive in my efforts to clarify what a true democracy is! This two-level fraud is difficult to explain unless the reader is taken through carefully stage at a time. It's also nice to keep you a little on-edge with anticipation. All good things come to those who wait.

So, I have explained that there is a 'magic' hidden component to all of this that is the defining characteristic of real Democracy and this mechanism that should be built into a democratic society gives the ordinary people of the country the direct power over the laws of the state.

That mechanism is full, un-abridged Trial-by-Jury; not the watered-down version we have today. The full system of Trial-by-Jury that we did have at one time and are still supposed to have now, has much sharper teeth and a far greater scope.

Most people will think of our current system of Trial-by-Jury as only really giving the jury the power to decide on the verdict for the accused - and, largely, they would be correct. This, on the surface, doesn't feel like it would be an especially powerful and appropriate platform from which to apply constraints to the state mechanisms and uphold the freedoms of the individuals of society; important though it is. But when one really understands what Trial-by-Jury is in its fullest form the light bulb clicks on. Yes, Trial-by-Jury even in its current, watered-down version is powerful and important but not half as critical to our individual freedoms and spectacular in the effects it produces as the full-fat version!

Once you fully understand what the jury has the power (and duty) to do in the full Trial-by-Jury system, you'll very quickly realise why it was one of the key aims of the establishment to remove its most potent parts as quickly as possible from the sight of the general public.

This is what a Jury has the power and duty to do in the full, un-abridged Trial-by-Jury system that has now unlawfully been removed from us:

1. Decide on the admissibility of evidence.  Juries would have access to all evidence un-filtered.  Nowadays, evidence is pre-selected for the jury by people in 'the system' (including judges), which, in many cases, has resulted in the distortion of juries' decisions.

2. Decide on the verdict: Guilty or Not-guilty. Importantly, this is done without any reference to the statutory code that is being tested in relation to the supposed crime. A guilty or not-guilty verdict is solely based on the conscience of the individual juror when deciding on whether there was malicious intent on the part of the accused. (Malice aforethought). For a guilty verdict, there has to have been deliberate intent. As D'Oudney makes clear in Democracy Defined: The Manifesto, guilt can only exist in motive and cannot be ascribed by legislation.

3. Decide on the sentence itself.

4. Make all decisions in this list without any interference from the Judge (who is wrongly named the 'Judge'). It is the Jury that makes all decisions not the judge.

"Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take or accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."

Lord Justice Denman: Regina v. C.J. O'Connel, 1884.

5. All decisions in this list are reached on the basis of unanimity. The accused is always considered not-guilty unless a 'guilty' decision is reached by every single one of the Jury. This means that a single juror has immense power. This is very significantly going wrong in the US with such unlawful inventions as 'a hung jury' or a 'majority verdict'. There are no such things under a proper and full Trial-by-Jury system. All jurors must proclaim a guilty verdict if the accused is to be found guilty.

6. And this is the kicker - this is the one that the members of the Judiciary, legislature and parliament really do not want you to know: The Jury also has the power to annul (or invalidate) legislation (government-created law) that is inappropriate or unfair according to their conscience. This is called Annulment-by-Jury. (Sometimes rather ambiguously named 'Jury Nullification'). This would happen by applying the Not-Guilty verdict. The act of doing this starts the process of legislation being extracted from the statute books. For most in the establishment, this is an absolute bombshell. As explained above concerning unanimity, this means that a single member of society (one, single juror) has the power to annul government-created law if, according to their conscience they cannot give the guilty verdict to the accused. That really hurts the egos of those in the political class.

The Common Law: A Higher Jurisdiction

Now we are beginning to see the difference between government-created 'law' (in the UK, called Parliamentary Statute created through Acts) and the decisions of juries. The collective decisions of juries based on principle and conscience of ordinary common folk is how justice is done in a truly democratic society precisely because it is judgement by peers. This underscores the principle of equality before the law: that nobody is above the law. We are judged by our fellow man - not by people in special positions of 'power'. This form of law that is made up of the decisions of juries is called Common Law and was inscribed by the Great Charter of 1215: Magna Carta. Most people in the judiciary would claim that Common Law is the collective decisions of Judges - but this is actually not the case despite what they may tell you.

"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."

D'Oudney, Democracy Defined: The Manifesto, pp. 8-9.

Logically, it follows, of course that Common Law is a higher jurisdiction of law than government-created code or regulation - because the people's judgement out-ranks that of our public servants. A Democracy is only a Democracy because it contains a full Common law/Trial-by-Jury system (especially including Annulment-by-Jury) in order to allow the ordinary people of the country who make up juries to judge the law that they themselves agree to abide by. The mechanisms of the state are firmly kept in their box.

"It is uniquely in the nature of Trial by Jury that juries fulfil the purpose of law in a democratic society. This is to maintain justice by protecting the citizen from injustice and crime of all kinds, whether perpetrated by the state or by other citizens; and to uphold the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of all. Trial by Jury defines democracy, for the juror is sovereign in Trial by Jury: the people rule." 

D'Oudney: Democracy Defined: The Manifesto, p. 5.

I'll leave you to decide whether your country is a true democracy or a tyrannical despotism.

"The Trial by Jury ever has been, and, I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals."

Book 3, Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 379.

Please obtain a copy of Kenn D'Oudney's book 'Democracy Defined: The Manifesto'. You can get it on Amazon. I can honestly say, that in all the years I have been reading into this subject, it is through this book more than any other that misunderstandings have been clarified and gaps in my knowledge filled.

A Quick Re-cap

1. We have been tricked over the word Democracy
2. Some believe democracy is all about voting in elections. That is not Democracy but Suffrage.
3. Others have noticed the official version of Democracy is not sufficient to limit the state and uphold freedoms of the individual and so clamour for something other than Democracy
4. A Republic is not the opposite to a Democracy - they cannot even be compared as they are talking about different aspects of a state's construction
5. A Republic can be compared with a Monarchy - these describe the style of the Head-of-State (President or King/Queen)
6. Both a Republic and a Monarchy can be Democracies if the head-of-state is limited in its powers and has taken promises to the people and a full un-abridged Trial-by-Jury system is in place
7. Both a Republic and a Monarchy can be tyrannies (and obviously not democratic if these features are missing)
8. Ordinary people must require a restoration of these Democratic features in their country if they are to regain their true freedoms and place government and the state back under its proper limitations
9. They would do this by insisting that a full system of Trial-by-Jury is re-established that especially includes the powers of Annulment-by-Jury: the defining characteristic of a Democracy.

Democracy - It can be trusted After-All, by William Keyte - November 2017

Fake News = Fake Democracy

I once had the pleasure of speaking to Justin Walker, the founder of the British Constitution Group.  He told me of some solemn advice that he was once given by his late uncle, Sir Harry Pilkington:

"In 1954, my uncle, Lord Pilkington, attended the inaugural Bilderberg Group meeting at the Hotel Bilderberg in Holland.  A year later, he became a Director of the Bank of England, a position he held until 1972. It was also in 1972, as a sixteen-year-old on my way back to school on the train to do my ‘O’ levels, that my uncle suddenly told me what he considered to be the two most important facts that I should take through life: he said “Never, ever believe anything you read in the press because we control it – and never, ever believe a politician when they say they can do something…they can’t unless we say they can!”

I have for some time had no doubts that our mainstream media and press, the BBC included, are controlled by the rich and powerful of the world. In the main, only neutral or favorable information is expressed through the corporate-controlled media-machine. What does slip through their control is either unimportant to the overall momentum of the corporate agenda, or its ignored and dismissed in a number of ways.

If you have ever been directly involved in any publicity campaign you will know that the media do not report all the facts, they omit and sometimes bend information to meet an agenda being set for them. Ask members of the recent campaigns for the EU referendum, the Firefighter’s pensions dispute, the Scottish referendum, the young Doctors, the 'Save our NHS' campaign, and many anti-war campaigns, to name just a few. Anyone involved in these processes will attest to the manipulation of the media in favour of the Government’s preferred outcomes.

In 2008, award-winning journalist Nick Davies lifted the lid on how manipulative the mainstream media is. The title of his article in the Independent newspaper says it all: “How the Spooks Took Over the News.” In his articles and his book, he illustrates how “shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion--and the media simply swallow it wholesale.” In the Guardian newspaper, Davies describes how our media have become mass producers of distortion, and he evidences this with clear, unambiguous examples. He convincingly delivers the message that “the mass media generally are no longer a reliable source of information”.

The international mega media corporations, like News International owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, drive opinion and political awareness not just in the direction of profit, but also towards the longer-term goals of their associates. The corporate ownership of news has now all but destroyed the principle of truth-telling by grossly politicising the news agenda and severely reducing the actual time available for journalists to do their jobs.

Specialists at Cardiff University surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their “facts”, they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just could not be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these “facts” had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the articles. 

The implication of these two findings is alarming. Where once journalists were active detectives and gatherers of news, now they are blocked by their chief editor or have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by agencies to serve some political or commercial interest.

"Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every year to control the public mind." - Noam Chomsky

Democracy cannot exist without a free press.  Without widely available, reliable and rigorous journalism their can be no means of making properly informed choices.  Choices based upon half-truths or disinformation are not choices. With a stifled and controlled media, representative democracy becomes even more of a joke than it already is. 

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”― George Orwell, 1984

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/04/comment.pressandpublishing

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html

Which war crimes did the West commit last night?

The first international law that has been broken by attacking Syria last night was Article 2 of the Treaty for Renunciation of War. It is the single most important Treaty that the UK and the rest of the World ever signed to prevent unlawful wars. It is called the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928.

This is an international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".

Article II –

“The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

The Kellogg-Briand Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Pact's central provisions renounce the use of war and promotes peaceful settlement of disputes and the use of collective force to prevent aggression. It was incorporated into the United Nations Charter and other treaties. It formed the basis of the charges against German leaders of war crimes in the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, which led to their convictions and hangings.

The second law that has been broken is the UN Charter of 1945, specifically Article 2, subsections 3 and 4, as below.

Article 2.3 - “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

Article 2.4 – “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The UN Charter, in which we promise never to threaten or attack another nation State, is an international law which holds this world together. It has been violated.

Probably the most important international war law that has ever been agreed is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002). In 1998 this was signed by 132 Nations. Britain ratified this law in September 2001, which means that this international law became part of British national law, introducing jurisdiction for international war crimes into Britain.

Under these laws the People of Britain should be able to prosecute and impeach our reckless, mis-representative and criminal leaders for war crimes and for inciting crimes ancillary to genocide.

War crimes do appear to have been committed. The attacks took place before chemical weapon inspectors could arrive in Douma. Our Government appears to have used unjustifiable acts of aggression against an independent State, with no real authority or tangible evidence.

Update:

The UK Conservative Government has justified its actions on the basis of humanitarian intervention and customary international law practices which are rejected by a large majority of states and therefore cannot be customary international law.

Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, Oxford University, gave this opinion:

"In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:

1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.

2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.

3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.

4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action."