| Invalid Or Void Orders From Judges |
If you are denied due process in any way the judge's order is VOID!
-Most times you need do nothing, though the police and others will still act like the order is valid, it is unenforceable in a real court of law with a real jury! This mean if you are denied the ability to question witnesses, offer evidence, testify on your own behalf and many other technical things the resulting order is void. You should file a simple notice of appeal letter within 30 days to be safe and show you do not believe the order is valid, but in any enforcement action against that order it will be reveled to be void. I would also get the audio tape and/or a transcript BEFORE it is needed. Some courts have been accused of editing tapes. You MUST ask for these rights and should object to not having them. |
I would like to explain that James was Arrested: Special Judge Cantrell is NOT an elected JUDGE! Sen. James Williamson (Bar #9698). is in fact, the County of Tulsa Attorney and a Senator a conflict of Emolument, and wholly unconstitutional. Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke is trumping up evaluations to delay decisions.
It is a fact that James is Sui Juris not Pro Se It is also a fact that Ex-parte (one-sided) communication with one or some, but not all parties or attorneys. Including refusing to listen to a Sui Juris, Pro Se or Pro Per party. It is a fact that the PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER was NOT present! Contempt of court the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful of a court of law. Which in fact James did as he was told. Which was a direct violation of Constitutional rights. Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/She is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge (and, therefore, has no jurisdiction). The state Supreme Courts have held that those who aid, abet, advise, act upon and execute the order of a judge who acts without jurisdiction are equally guilty. They are equally guilty of a crime against the U.S. Government. A voidable order is an order that must be declared void by a judge to be void; a void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void. Only an inspection of the record of the case showing that the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a person's due process rights, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.
Authorities on Void Judgments
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574
Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. See also Voidable judgment.
Other Authorities on Void Judgments:
Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. See:
Wahl v. Round Valley Bank, 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P.955 (1931) Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914) Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940)
A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999)
A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. See Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972)
A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect. See Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).
Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect. Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985).
A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So.2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985). Ajudgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).
Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward. v. Terriere, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963). A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved and such a judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987).
Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App.Dist. 1993).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).
Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a completenullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982).
Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal effect In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E.2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1994).
Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity. People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907 (Ill.APp. 4 Dist. 1991).
Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2d 1383 (Ill App. 5 Dist. 1983).
A void judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of confirmation or ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N.E.2d 1114, rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 Dist. 1993).
Void judgment is one that from its inception is a complete nullity and without legal effect Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998).
Relief from void judgment is available when trial court lacked either personal or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d 458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).
Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14, Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 896 P.2d 58 (Kan.1997)
Judgment is void if court that rendered it lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction; void judgment is nullity and may be vacated at any time, Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).
A void judgment is one rendered by a a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, In re. Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan.App. 1999).
Void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties, 310 N.W.2d 502, (Minn. 1981).
A void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties, Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1973).
A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render it has no jurisdiction, Mills v. Richardson, 81S.E.2d 409 (N.C. 1954).
A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E.2d 227, (N.C. 1950).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment, State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996).
Void judgment, such as may be vacated at any time is one whose invalidity appears on face of judgment roll, Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okl. 1991).
A void judgment is one that is void on face of judgment roll, Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewley, 795 P.2d 1051 (Okl. 1990).
Where condition of bail bond was that defendant would appear at present term of court, judgment forfeiting bond for defendant's bail to appear at subsequent term was a void judgment within rule that laches does not run against a voidjudgment, Com. V. Miller, 150 A.2d 585 (Pa.Super. 1959).
A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment, State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).
Void judgment is one which shows upon face of record want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, and want of jurisdiction may be either of persons, subject matter generally, particular question to be decided or relief assumed to be given, State ex re. Dawson v. Bomar, 354 S.W.2d 763, certiorari denied, (Tenn. 1962).
A void judgment is one which shows upon face of record a want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W.2d 168 (Tenn. 1951).
Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed, City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.X.2d 141 (Twx.Civ.App.-Beaumone 1973).
A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1951).
A void judgment is one that has bee procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987).
A void judgment is a judgment, decree, or order entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, State ex re. Turner v. Briggs, 971 P.2d 581 (Wash.App.Div. 1999).
A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill. APp. 1 Dist. 2000).
Void judgments are those rendered by court which lacked jurisdiction, either of subject matter or parties, Cockerham. v. Zikratch, 619 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1980).
Void judgments generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgments where there is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and judgments procured through fraud, and such judgments may be attacked directly or collaterially, Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (Ill. app. 2 Dis. 1960).
Invalidity needs to appear on face of judgment alone that judgment or order may be said to be intrinsically void orvoid on its face, if lack of jurisdiction appears from the record, Cockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 S.W.2d 154 (Mo.App. 1964).
Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when form four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least on of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment hat was rendered, B & C Investments, INc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla.App.Div 3, 1995).
Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time, In Re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809 (Ill. 1994).
Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court, People ex. re. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App.2 Dist. 1994).
While voidable orders are readily appealable and must be attacked directly, void order may be circumvented by collateral attack or remedied by mandamus, Sachez v. Hester, 911 S.W.2d 173, (Tex.App. -Corpus Christi 1995).
Arizona courts give great weight to federal courts' interpretations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing motion for releif from judgment in interpreting identical text of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure, Estate of Page v. Litzenburg, 852 P.2d 128, review denied (Ariz.App.Div. 1, 1998).
When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).
Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.
A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58).
On certiorari this Court may not review questions of fact. Brown v. Blanchard, 39 Mich. 790. It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts (Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor to review the weight of the evidence. Linn v. Roberts, 5 Mich 443; Lunch v. People, 16 Mich 472. Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there is no evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469.
Major differences between void and voidable orders.
First... subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time up until the time of trial. If you go through trial without raising it, then you have been afforded due process and failed to raise the claim before trial. Second... if an order remains voidable, it is considered lawful until set aside. The litigant must take due care to exercise due process or risk being subjected to the contempt powers of the court. It is insufficient to wait until he is order to show caused because they will say he had ample opportunity to challenge the order and examine the contempt in a vaccuum. Third... he must go on the offensive and exercise due process if the order is voidable, or it will remain lawful. I hear a lot about void orders for want of jurisdiction, the only problem with that is that statutory law abrogates case law/common law. So if a statute exists to replace the common law, it does so. Nearly every state says an order is lawful until successfully challenged. There is a risk involved if it is not attacked, and done so vigilantly. |
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
VOID AND VOIDABLE JUDGMENTS IN http://www.fathersunite.org/Judicial%20Abuse/void_orders_from_judge.html
Sunday, May 5, 2013
REPLY FROM KENN D'OUDNEY SENT TO DR. JOHN WILSON FOR THE LATTER'S RESPONSE AND ACTION?
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:48 PM
To: Nicholas N Chin
Cc: Sue Maynes ; David Walter
Subject: To Nicholas Chin from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.
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 Home Page of The Democracy Defined Campaign
for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY.
VERITAS, COGNITIO, IUSTITIA, LIBERTAS.
Media
and General Enquiries: campaign@democracydefined.org
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.
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.).
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 Nicholas,
We are very sorry to hear about your
predicament. Unfortunately, yours is an experience only too familiar to the
RESTORATION Campaign. Your interests and confrontation of the other lawyers with
their alleged criminal infractions form a cause which should only be
judged upon by disinterested jurors.
This Campaign is for Restoration of the
authentic Constitutional Trial by Jury which is not only utilised for
defence against accusations, but is indispensable as the
prosecutory means of holding those who work in or for
government to the Rule of Law by which such persons' wrongdoing is brought to
account. (The judiciary is an arm of government.)
Today, the Restoration of Common Law Trial by
Jury constitutes the single most important secular duty of all adults.
Have you yet joined support the Australian
Common Law Party ? It is (to our knowledge) the only Australian Party which is
fully committed to Restoration of Trial by Jury. Contact ACLP Chairman Dr. John
Wilson: jhwilson@rightsandwrong.com.au
RESTORATION would
produce redress and compensation for ALL causes deemed fair by our men and women
in juries.
Yours sincerely,
Kenn.
Kenn d'Oudney.www.democracydefined.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas
N Chin
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: Nicholas N Chin has left a
message for you
Hi Kenn:
The WA Discipline Board for Lawyers the LPCC
conducted malafides proceedings against me in VR 87 OF 2007. The Mala Fides of
the the President of the State Administrative Tribunal Justice Chaney was asked
to recuse himself when he did a bare-faced lying judgment against me. He did
recused himself by activating his Deputy Judge SAT to continue to do the
insidious job for him which he did by removing me from the roll of barristers
and solicitors. I was asked to respond to his order confining myself to the
penalty issue which the latter judge was proposing against me. I put up my
written submissions, which I considered to be part and parcel of the appeal
process i.e. my submissions against Penalty is equated to my Submissions against
being guilty of the claimed wrongdoings (My Submissions).
My Submissions is not being considered by the Full
Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which sat on 12.12.2012 to
remove me from the roll of barristers and solicitors. It contends that I have
have NOT appealed the SAT decision to remove from the roll.
The mala fides of the LPCC are:
1) It disciplines me for contrived infractions
whereas it does not discipline lawyers like Timothy Robin Thies, David Taylor
and Pino Monaco for real infractions of the law.
2) It finds me guilty of sham dishonesty upon the
non-complaining Mrs. Mathias who had withdrawn her complaint about a res
judicata issue or non-issue that I had already a costs agreement when it did not
happened. There is proof that the ink of the costs agreement’s impugned
alteration was made subsequent after it had been drawn up. Indeed it is: the
alteration was made after it was drawn up within a few minutes and with the
presence of Mrs. Mathias. It contradicts the fundamental common law notion for a
real finding of fraud i.e. there must be a pecuniary deprivation of funds of
Mrs. Mathias and there was none. In fact Mrs. Mathias obtained benefits from me
for which I had condoned her non-payment for my legal services (the Sham
Dishonesty).
3) The Sham Dishonesty is just a ruse of the LPCC
to get me out of the legal profession just because I had made allegations of the
real infractions of the law by the three lawyers:
3.1. David Taylor for misleading the court with a
forged document that he filed the impugned Writ of Summons on time in compliance
with Justice Jenkins Orders in CIV1142 of 2005 when he did not. My client
suffered a premature death as a result of the injustice she received from Mr.
David Taylor. The various courts simply refused to make a decision on this
barefaced facts that was properly brought before it.
3.2. Pino Monaco for misleading the court that he
did not used duplicitous and duplicated bills of costs to effect the pillaging
and plundering my client Dr. Kheng Su Chan.
3.3. Timothy Robin Thies pillaged and plundered my
son Paul Chin contrary to the tenor of the costs agreement he entered into with
my son Paul Chin. The lawyer refused to quit when told to do so and keep
escalating costs for my son Paul. This case was finally won by me but the court
refused to acknowledge that Mr. Thies has no caveatable interests to justify his
strangle-hold over my son’s property and refused to order damages against him.
3.5. Both Timothy Thies and David Taylor misled the
court when they unlawfully lodged unlawful caveats against the property of my
son Paul Chin and my former client Ms Nancy Hall respectively, when both of
these lawyers know or should know that caveatable interests can only be founded
upon proprietary interests in the caveat property which both lawyers or their
clients have none. They have thus misled the courts on the fundamental principle
of law and are getting away with it. I have appealed this point but the Supreme
Court is ignoring it.
Armed with a summary of my grievance, I hope your
Campaign can solve this “democracy” problem for me, which is my fundamental
human rights to be able to earn my living as a lawyer.
Cheers.
Nicholas N Chin
"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."
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:
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.
"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.
"Superb. Should be read in every law
school."John Walsh, Barrister-at-Law, Author; Constitutional lawyer (U.S. & Australia).
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.
Softback, 260 large-size pages.http://www.democracydefined.org/1report.htm
“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.
SRC Publishing Ltd.,
London, available here
from world distribution by LULU of North Carolina.
Available as a textbook.
SO YOU THOUGHT CANNABIS
PROHIBITION HAS NO EFFECT UPON YOU ?
THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204:
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 not less than 75 - 80 percent 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).
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.
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.
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 addresses do change from time to time.
If you find the link broken, then paste the TITLE of
the video given in our text into your browser and find the documentary video
that way.
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;
RADIOACTIVITY FROM CROPS FED WITH
PHOSPHATE ‘FERTILISER’ IS THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF
CANCER; some Findings of Fact downloadable for free, extracted
from THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204 (referred to above);
CHIEF JUSTICE VAUGHAN'S RULING; on 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/
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. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)