Jan./Feb., 2012.

This article was written by Kenn d’Oudney from the Democracy Defined Organisation in response to an email enquiry and the assertion that trial by jury was something to be feared, as the Sion Jenkins case in the UK demonstrated how easy it was for the prosecution to manipulate the jury to get a guilty verdict.  As Ken points out, this was not real common law, but a fabrication.

An Essay by Kenn d’Oudney,

IN REPLY TO THE ASSERTION THAT

TRIAL BY JURY IS SOMETHING TO BE GREATLY FEARED.

Dear Members,

Greetings. We hope you are well.  Here below is an exchange of great interest and relevance to the cause of RESTORATION.   Take your time for a thorough perusal of the information and memorise the facts and arguments. They will stand you in good stead when educating folk to the necessity of restoring Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury.

All the best, and good campaigning!

Yours sincerely, Astra.

www.democracydefined.org

REPLY:

Dear Peter,

If you did know what the authentic Constitutional Trial by Jury is, then you would know that what takes place today is a trial-by-judge,  a “Diplock court”; NOT at all a Trial by Jury.

It is really important for everyone (you notwithstanding!) to learn why Trial by Jury is not only unique but also indispensable to their well-being.  For a generation or more, all of the Juror’s Duties by which a Common Law Trial by Jury process is governed and defined have been denied, interfered with and completely obstructed by the politicians, Law Society and judges.

Regarding the trials of Siôn Jenkins, your preference for a “Diplock court,” which is a trial-by-judge, is wildly misplaced and wholly unfounded, because it was the Jurors who saved Siôn from what the judiciary, police and prosecutor had in store for him.

Knowing and deciding on the evidence which was to be presented to  the Jurors, the judge must have considered that there was the strongest probability that a ‘guilty’ verdict would ensue. For this reason, the judge allowed the prosecution to proceed. The defence naturally appealed against the first verdict and a re-trial followed…

The judge (who nowadays decides on the admissibility of evidence) and the crown prosecution service kept prosecuting Siôn Jenkins (three times), and a trial-by-judge would therefore have without hesitation pronounced him Guilty each time.  But for the Jurors, Siôn Jenkins would have gone to jail for life.

However, in the jury-box sat the passive, inert citizens utterly devoid of the correct Juror’s Powers, Procedures, Rights and Duties and who cannot truthfully or lawfully be called “juries.” In the second and third processes the citizens did not find guilt. Nevertheless, your objections are actually to that government-fabricated system of injustice which disguises itself under the appearance and name, but is nothing like real Trial by Jury.

What took place was the despots’ familiar travesty which breaches both the Trial by Jury and Constitution, and is an ex parte [one-sided], illegitimate charade implanted by corrupt governments to produce the verdicts preferred by the state and prosecution, enacted everywhere today, controlled by judges, and is in fact the inherently illegal trial-by-judge thinly veiled.

That is to say, the ‘trial’ which takes place today which people refer to as “trial by jury” is NOT Trial by Jury at all*, for all the duties of the jurors which define the process as being a Trial by Jury, are denied, interfered with and obstructed by the courts.

*See TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True Purpose and Modern Relevance

ISBN 9781902848723 by d’Oudney & Spooner.

For example, if the evidence is controlled, pre-selected and arranged by someone other than the jurors, then the outcome or verdict can be predetermined by someone other than the jury; and the process is an illegal masquerade.  In genuine Trial by Jury, the jurors and only the jurors decide on the admissbility of the evidence. All evidence which may reveal the whole truth and help the defence can be presented.  It is one of the most serious crimes it is possible to commit, and an immoral act, knowingly to withhold from jurors evidence which, if they saw it, would change the verdict. Yet, today, jurors are permitted only to consider such evidence as the judge chooses to allow, a process:

(i)     in which all evidence is screened out from consideration by the jurors, if it “disputes”    the legality of the law, i.e., the validity and effects, the foundation and veracity, the equity or the justice of the law;

(ii)         which pre-judges and condemns countless INNOCENT people (by definition, no malice  aforethought, no mens rea: NOT GUILTY); and,

(iii)          which is a trial-by-judge, not a trial by the jurors, i.e., not Trial by Jury.  In judicable* crimes of collusion and abetment, for careers and pay, mendacious politicians, law lecturers and members of the legal profession participate in or propagate and support this illegal rigmarole by which government replaces Constitutional Trial by Jury.

* Definition. judicable, that which may be tried by jury in a court of law.

CRIME, HOLOCAUST AND WAR.

Peter, You need to come to terms with the fact that Trial by Jury  confronts not only common crime, but also crime by government; that is despotism and tyranny*.

* Definition. Tyranny is defined as oppressive rule administered with injustice; the cruel and arbitrary use of authority.

Never let it be forgotten that throughout the History of the World right up to date, ALL the greatest CRIMES have been and are being perpetrated by, and in the name of, government.  Trial by Jury is the sole (peaceful) means known to humankind by which government can be held to the universal, secular common law values which underpin civilisation.

The natural or universal law and its constitutionally-emplaced common law derivative govern government, and inclusively and impartially judge all the acts and motives of men and women everywhere, in all times and places, including atheists, agnostics, theists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Mormons, Quakers, and, whether they like it or not, Mohammadans, etc.

Understanding Legem Terræ (i.e., the Law of the Land which defines and prescribes the People’s all-powerful Courts of the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System inscribed into Magna Carta, 1215), reveals how, through Trial by Jury, the people at large peacefully protect themselves from despotism, villainy and potential holocaust.

Through the (genuine Constitutional) Trial by Jury, the people re-establish the primacy of the universal natural and common law and justice over government statute and case law (‘precedent’); punish and  deter crime; resume their rightful responsible rôle to police their society; nurture the values of equal justice and respect for the rights of others; fulfil the purpose of Trial by Jury to deter and eliminate crime; and they uphold the Constitution. The duplicitous legislation by which wealth and/or hegemony accrues to particular preferred people or segments of society is thus rapidly and permanently extirpated.

The consummation of the purpose of Trial by Jury (described in the preceding paragraph) constitutes the reason explaining why judges and politicians are active in denying and destroying Constitutional Trial by Jury: the criminally corrupt reveal themselves as such by their very antithesis to Trial by Jury.

Whereas ALL injustices and wrongs from petty tyranny to genocidal holocaust may flow from the denial of authentic Trial by Jury, only from the Trial by Jury-based Society can Equal Justice and definitive democracy reliably emerge. Hence, whenever Trial by Jury is denied, then the state or government which denies it commits Crime against Humanity.

When the fact of all the people having equal and ultimate control over the enforcement of laws in the Trial by Jury is a firmly established social reality, it makes the passing of tyrannical legislation by national assemblies a fruitless exercise predestined to failure. Tyranny is nipped in the bud.

The immediate outcome of Restoration of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System would be the curtailment of politicians’ and their beholden servitors, the judges’, undue powers, and the thorough reversal of their pernicious acts by which World Civilisation is currently being discreetly dismantled to establish the few select bank-owners’ supreme dictatorship through their ‘new world order’, ‘one world government’ answerable to no one. This latter is comprised of a tiny malevolent clique of the private-owners of the world’s ‘Central Banks’ (the B of E; the Federal Reserve, etc.); Rothschilds; Rockefellers (Chase Manhattan); Bushes (Brown Brothers Harriman); et al.

With Trial by Jury holding sway, laws count for naught unless they be just. Thus, the People are served, not ruled, by governments. Such government then cannot but embody truly wholesome ideals and civilised   aspirations. This type of government attracts, and is comprised of, people representing the citizens’ interests; and oppressing none; and no tyrant can attain power. Such is democracy.

At the behest of juries of ordinary citizens, the state is constrained into enforcing only just principles and democratic attitudes which accord with the People’s judgement in Trials by Jury, such as those reflecting common law values: fraternity, liberty, egalitarianism, progress and justice.

By the diligent upholding of this Constitution, all tyranny is pre-empted. Not only are bureaucratic, judicial and fiscal injustices eliminated, but tyrants, great and petty, are emasculated. This enforceable democratic control by the People was constitutionally emplaced to extend equally over the historic and current ‘religious’ tyrannies, as to secular, which are suffered under man’s inhumanity to man.

Thus, Constitutional Democracies founded on the Common Law Trial by Jury respond to, but cannot initiate, aggression, including wars so-defined. If Trial by Jury had remained operating throughout the European nations, whence it originated, the Hohenzollern, Hitler and Stalin tyrannies would have been truncated, and the Holocaust and both World Wars averted.

TREASON AND TYRANNY TODAY

For corrupt motives, politicians and judges adopt the treasonous negation of the Citizen’s Supreme Legal Power that the Great Charter Constitution, 1215, explicitly bestows in perpetuity on ordinary citizens as Jurors in the Trial by Jury, by which to police their society and uphold Equal Justice and Liberty.   The Articles of the Constitution specifically restrict the judge’s and government’s rôle in the Justice System to that which is executive, i.e., to carry out the decisions of Juries, and prescribe the judicial rôle to the Juror through the Citizens’ Duties in Trial by Jury, as follows,

• firstly, to vet, judge, dispute, decide, make and enforce the laws; and annul the prosecution of unwanted, arbitrary and unjust laws by finding Not Guilty those accused under such illegal ‘laws’; and
• secondly, to indict, arrest and bring to Trial by Jury (prosecute), and punish as adjudged by the Jury (judicium; judgements, verdicts and sentences), those within government (i.e., executive, legislature and judiciary) who are responsible for those criminal activities which vitiate the Constitutionally-provided self-protection Powers of the citizenry (as mentioned in the first point), and contravene any other articles of the Great Charter Constitution.

Common law governs government by the fact that all men and women are equally subject to the common law. No one is ‘above’ the Law of the  Land (legem terræ). There is no immunity from the Jury’s Verdict, judges, legislators and head of state notwithstanding (ref. Articles 24, 39, 40, & 61). The decisions of Juries judge and rule over statutes and regulations made by national or local governments, and the interpretations and decisions (stare decisis) of judges. Since pre-historical time immemorial, juries of people from all backgrounds, some literate, others not, have agreed on and enforced the common law against the Crime of Injustice, that is, any act of intrinsically malicious motive, mens rea, such as tyranny, murder, rape, bodily harm, mental cruelty, torture, robbery, theft, extortion, arbitrary dispossession, usury, fraud and so on.

Crime receives the universal condemnation of men and women in juries in all times and places. This phenomenon is produced for the following reasons.

Whilst outside of the jury situation, adults behave (whether fairly to others or not) according to what they consider to be in their interests, within the jury, when disinterested, randomly-selected citizens know the facts from which a verdict is to be inferred, they arrive at the same conclusion or verdict unless there is reasonable doubt ceded by the inconclusive nature of the evidence, or they perceive injustice in the law, or injustice in the act of its enforcement.

This is because common law juries know that they are there to protect themselves as well as their fellow citizens by enforcing the just laws with unanimity, whilst the unjust or venal statutes and the enforcement of injustices by corrupt, incompetent or prejudiced judges are fittingly annulled by the pronouncing of the Not Guilty Verdict.

It serves the interest of the individual citizen and the People at large to do so. That is to say, the People reliably enforce just laws; and, only laws which are just are those which should and must be enforced.  What is more, even and especially the covert undiscovered felon (murderer, robber fraudster, mobster, sex offender, etc.) called to serve on a jury, enforces the just laws with alacrity, for not to do so would reveal his insalubrious character to the other jurors, thereby bringing on himself numerous malconsequences.

(Note: A majority is not a Jury. There is no (good) reason for the invention of ‘majority verdicts’; so-called ‘majority verdicts’ are illegal under the Constitutional Common Law governing Trial by Jury; see Campaign Philosophy webpage Three.)

Common law juries continuously enforce the just laws with Uanimity, whilst unjust or venal statutes and the enforcement of injustices by fallible judges, are fittingly annulled (i.e., Annulment-by-Jury) by the pronouncing of the Not Guilty Verdict.

Consider Harlan F. Stone, U.S. Chief Justice 1941-1946, on the Juror’s Duty in the authentic Trial by Jury, as follows:

“If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.”

“That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone; Harvard Law Review.        (Emphases added.)

Trial by Jury Was Constitutionally Emplaced for the Purposes of:

A.) not only ascertaining guilt or innocence of the accused and where necessary for apportioning retribution, but also

B.) of transcendent importance, as a barrier to protect the vast mass of innocent citizenry from the crimes of arbitrary government, i.e., unjust laws, tyranny; and from the corruption, prejudices and incompetence of fallible justices (judges). Trial by Jury enables the people to judge authoritatively what their liberties and laws are (as explained hereinafter), so that the people retain all the liberties which they wish to enjoy.

HOW EQUAL JUSTICE IS DONE

Equal Justice is done with the Juror’s Duties to the fore to judge:

~on the justice of the law, and annul by pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict any law or act of enforcement which is deemed unfair or unjust according to the juror’s conscience (i.e., sense of right and wrong);

~in addition to the facts, and on the admissibility of evidence (evidence not being pre-selected or screened-out by government or judge and/or prosecutor);

~that the accused must have acted with malice aforethought, i.e., mens rea, a premeditated malicious motive to find guilt of crime (‘guilt’ is a characteristic inherent or absent in motives and actions:   it cannot be ascribed by legislation*);

~on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence; and

~where guilt is unanimously found, on mitigating circumstances if any (provocation; temptation; incitation); and

~set the sentence (with regard to its being fit and just).

*There is neither moral justice for punishing nor political necessity (i.e., deterrent value) where there was no mens rea. (In the case of one person injuring another innocently or accidentally, the civil law suit and the Trial by Jury award appropriate compensation for damages.)

IN CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY:

~the jury has the power to call witnesses, advisers and appoint amicus curiæ*; (*amicus curiæ is Latin for ‘a friend to the court’; an impartial adviser not a party to the case (not necessarily a lawyer); pronounced cure-ee-ee, the æ as in Cæsar; seize).

~N.B. the rule of law rôle of convenors of courts (‘judges’) is as a convenor and for arranging security; advisory, inasmuch as this may be requested by the jury, of which advice jurors may take only what is by them adjudged appropriate; and for the arranging of re-trials and appeals if necessitated by circumstances (see Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, pp. 57 & 70; and Vol. 1 of Palgrave’s Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, p. 277; etc.);

~those misnamed ‘justices’ or ‘judges’ (i.e., the convenors) are wholly subsidiary to and at the command of the jury and its Foreman or woman;

~the ‘judge’ has no judicial rôle or authority: this precludes the possibility of judges inflicting injustices as is so often the case today;

~self-evidently, despite being named a ‘judge’ this person without judicial authority cannot legitimately set ‘precedents’, make ‘case law’, ‘rulings’ on law, or ‘interpretations’ of law. Still less can the outpourings of a person bereft of a judicial position interpret or dictate the law in any way binding on a Jury. At the common law, for the irrevocable principles of fairness, impartiality and justice, only the Jurors (not the government ‘judge’) try, i.e., judge, the case according to common law principles and duties;

~advice may be requested by the jurors from the convenor (‘judge’) who need not be qualified in the law to perform the functions of convenor because, according to common law, if explanation of a law is ever required, or its justice or validity and hence its very legality is disputed, both the plaintiff and the accused and their counsel and amicus curiæ may render such explication as the jury deems necessary;

~at common law, excepting criminals and lunatics, the functions and rôle of the ‘judge’, i.e., the convenor, are straightforward and can be undertaken by any elected or sortition (i.e., randomly) chosen adult inexpert in the law. This is because the Juror’s Duty is uncomplicated: ‘guilt’ of a crime can only be pronounced where the accused’s act was a deliberate, premeditated one of malice aforethought. Similar judgements are the daily fact of life in commonplace human interactions. We make such appraisals frequently… “Is this person behaving in a way that is dishonest or malign?” “Is that person telling the truth?” “Why are they doing that?” “Are these people genuine?” Regardless of the intricacies of evidence (and it is always for the plaintiff/ prosecution to present a clear case), the contrast between genuine innocence and malicious motivation is easy for jurors to discern. Ulterior mens rea, i.e., malicious criminal intent, lies behind Politicians, judges and other individuals advocating denial of Trial by Jury and the handing over of cases to the despots’ method of injustice: the ‘trial-by-government-judge’;

~jurors may observe or reject advice about the law as they consider appropriate and decide the law and verdict according to their individual conscience (i.e., sense of fairness, right and wrong);

~the Trial by Jury is the only system which is legal for all process of law, civil, criminal and fiscal. This was duly recognised and inscribed into Magna Carta (viz. Article 39). That is to say, government only has the power to act against a person, his property or liberties by the authority of, and according to the sentence of a jury;

~contempt charges laid on persons by juries or judges have to be tried as for any crime, that is, by jury;

~the jurors’ duty to do justice, and the Right of Juries to find the Verdict according to the jurors’ convictions and conscience, are amongst the duties which define the Trial as being by Jury (as opposed to it being trial by government or trial-by-judge);

~all evidence can be presented, and requires to be considered for its admissibility by the jurors ? especially if it reveals partiality, injustice, an unfounded nature, or venality in the law;

~by ascribing judgement (i.e., all judicial functions) to the peers (jurors), the Trial by Jury comprises a Constitution per se, allowing punishments neither to be prescribed by statute, that is, by the legislative power, nor in any other manner by government or judges.  Consequently, all statutes or regulations prescribing particular punishments for particular ‘offences’, or giving the government’s judges any authority to set punishments, were, and are, void. Such sentences pertaining thereto are Miscarriages of Justice. All persons suffering persecution thereby are due a proper Trial by Jury (re-trial); and if found to have acted innocently, i.e., behaved without malice aforethought (the criterion by which ‘guilt’ is defined by common law), are due (overdue) Amnesty and Restitution;

~common law takes into account the fact that if the amounts of fines were left to be set by the government (judge) it would represent an irresistible pecuniary temptation for government to impose oppressive   amercements on people. Similarly, if the judges were allowed to set sentences other than fines, they could be seduced by corrupt motives into threatening or imposing harsh sentences to achieve criminal aims;

~in short, common law and accordingly the Constitution forbid government functionaries from interfering in any aspect of the judgement and sentencing of a citizen’s behaviour in any Trial by Jury whatsoever.   The pan-European common law inscribed into Magna Carta prescribes that all aspects of the case are to be judged by the jurors. It was and remains the purpose of Trial by Jury to protect the people from all possible oppression by government. The jury and only the jury set the sentence.

~Common law does not prescribe that the government must punish according to the sentence of the peers, but that government shall not punish “nisi per,” “unless according to” that sentence. It does not oblige government to execute the sentence; but it forbids government from going beyond the sentence. Government might lessen the sentence or acquit on grounds of law, or even pardon (though these functions are always applied with caution and judiciously because the actions and decisions of government personnel are not immune from private prosecution by single or multiple plaintiffs before a Trial by Jury; see above).

However, government cannot legally punish beyond the extent of the jurors’ sentence. In this way, the Constitution forbids government from punishing except according to the judgement of peers: “nisi per  judicium parium suorum.”

~Convenors (‘judges’) cannot pronounce sentences unless they have been first set by the jury following a lawful common law Trial by Jury.   Hence, legally, judges cannot procede summarily in any case whatever,

even when a plea of guilty is entered and even if a defendant “agrees” to be “tried without a Jury.” For convenors to do so judicably breaches common law. In this way, enforcement of all law and regulations remains subject to the decisions of Juries, by which vexatious, unjust and arbitrary legislation may be annulled by due process with the subsequent effect that it may be expunged at the behest of the decisions of Juries; see common law explanation on Campaign Philosophy webpage One.

~Whilst administrative courts (justices, judges) may fulfil that function of the judicial department to interpret the meanings of the words comprising a statute to indicate to the legislature what the law may be and reflect upon statutes, legislation, regulations and such evidence as is submitted to them, this is a bureaucratic, advisory rôle.  To be lawful and legal the Trial of all crimes must in every case be by legem terræ common law Trial by Jury. Not only are the justices’ interpretations and rulings on the law never binding on a Jury, but in every Trial by Jury, sine qua non, the Jurors are the judges; the Jurors alone judge and decide on the admissibility of evidence and the legality of the statutes.

~The common law Jury forms the People’s Supreme Legislature and Judicature.

COMMON LAW TRIALS BY JURY DO NOT DRAG ON

With the Jury deciding on the admissibility of the evidence and supervising the process, Trial by Jury brings justice which is fair, swift and sure. Prosecution counsel must marshal the evidence to present an undelayed, forthright, straightforward comprehensible case; not the protracted lucrative charade in which lawyers feign and wallow today.

Citizens involved in Jury Duty embody the Authority of the country and its people: they are properly respected and compensated.

CRIME IS DIMINISHED

Brutish intrusions by the state and its personnel into innocent citizens’ lives are subject to prosecution and, where appropriate, to just retribution. Vexatious regulations are obliterated; life, liberty, property and rights are held in the hands of the people themselves (not subject to arbitrary government intervention).

The mass of partisan, inequitable, criminogenic and venal legislation (extant today), is duly annulled, unenforceable and generally expunged. Hence, the number of prosecutions is greatly reduced.

In the society run by ultimate rule of the people themselves deciding the law as Jurors, crime and litigation are significantly diminished.

DIFFERENCES

Consider the situation in the light which reveals some of the principal differences between trial-by-judge and the Trial by Jury:

Very rarely, retribution may fail to be visited upon a guilty individual, for example, from the incompetent presentation of the evidence to a case, or from an anomalous intrusive subornment of a juror. The plaintiff would not obtain what was his rightful due in this particular instance. That would be an end to the matter.

However, with the protections of one’s equal fellow citizens in the genuine Trial by Jury, under unjust laws or malfunctioning courts no injustice is ever inflicted on the innocent accused person because of the juror’s (even a single juror’s) power to ANNUL prosecution.  (Including re-Trial on appeal, this represents one dissenting Juror out of twenty-four.)

In stark contrast, under trial-by-judge (the system of legislative and judicial authority which today prevails over jurors’ independence thereby destroying and replacing the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury), injustice is perpetrated in every prosecution under an unjust law. On the judgement, and under the power, of judges, people’s property, liberty or lives can be routinely taken in cruel acts of tyranny.

Under the trial-by-judge system, the rights of the whole populace are demolished by the government’s laws thus enforced, and a totalitarian tyranny envelops the entire population placing the mass of the people prostrate at the feet of politicians and judges.

In Trial by Jury, if the justice of a law and/or its prosecution is not evident, and a sentence of punishment (being part of the law) cannot be accepted as justifiable and fair by twelve indiscriminately chosen adult citizens, then that ‘law’ is no law at all: its prosecution requires annulment-by-jury (Not Guilty) and it must not be enforced.   Yet, such justice cannot be delivered by judges whose binding modus operandi forbids them from disputing the justice and legality of law.

Once a law has been passed and interpreted for enforcement by the courts, the judge in the system of trial-by-judge (or tribunal of judges, the ombudsman or appeals’ courts), is neither permitted to dispute the legality of the law nor to produce a verdict according to conscientious judgement on whether the law or its enforcement is just, even when its enforcement is an act of extreme injustice. Whenever a law is passed (for whatever reason) which inflicts injustice, the trial-by-judge becomes an instrument of government oppression.   Trial-by-judge is the despot’s weapon.

If retribution might sometimes (but very rarely) want of being done in the Trial by Jury Justice System, Chief Justice Vaughan’s ruling recognises the phenomenon long understood and upheld by civilised mankind, that the consciences of a common law jury of twelve form a safer, purer tribunal than those of specially appointed individuals holding permanent offices lucratively remunerated and bound to enforce the government’s legislation.

Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania.

Like the Trial by Jury, this plaque will be removed if the modern politicians, dissolute servitors of the bank-owner behind-the-scenes, implacable criminal enemies of the people, democracy, truth, rights, liberty and justice, have their way.  For ease of reading, here is a transcription of the Plaque:

“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.”

Jurors do not decide the Verdict simply on whether evidence indicates a person “broke the law.”

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 unjust law is itself the embodiment of crime and, shown on Page Two of the Campaign Philosophy, the upholding or enforcing of any unjust law is a criminal act per se, and recognised as such by domestic and international law.

NOWADAYS…         THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATUS QUO

Anyone acquainted with the process of law in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere today, will see how far removed the practices of courts are from the ideals and legally binding stipulations of those nations’ Constitutions. Today, every single one of the above Juror’s Duties definitive of Trial by Jury (including judging on the facts of the case) is illegally forbidden, interfered with and/or obstructed by the ‘judges’.  Labyrinthine deceits of modern usurpation inhabit the politicians’ statute book, which bears no resemblance and pays no respect to universal common laws of truth, justice, liberty, and equality before the law.

Nowadays, Trial by Jury is precluded by judges’ illegal intervention to forbid jurors from judging on equity issues, on the justice of the law and its enforcement. The courts’ current unlawful modus operandi is to facilitate the tyranny manifest in the judiciary’s antidemocratic enforcement of inequitable and venal statutes and regulations, which otherwise citizen-jurors in the authentic Trial by Jury would emphatically annul en masse.

The motive behind, and explanation for, judges’ boundless treachery are the same today as they have always been, and they confirm that the indispensability of Trial by Jury is eternal: the judiciary is responsible, not to the People, but to the government; judges are dependent for careers, salaries and by impeachment, on the legislature: to remain judges, they must reliably enforce unjust legislation.

To allow these compromised humans to dictate the law, utterly surrenders all the liberties, rights, property and money of the People, to the arbitrary will of apostate politicians. Any person who would propose or support such a system of enslavement and subjection of the people, suffers from lack of education and knowledge of human behaviour and political history, or from acute antidemocratic mens rea (criminal intent).

The desertion of and infractions by modern judiciaries of universal natural law, secular common law morality, impartiality, justice and the strictures of the Australian, the U.S. Constitution and the U.K. Great Charter Constitution, are epitomised, and the injustice of today’s “justice system” is demonstrated, by judges’ prevaricative misstatement of law (which they are all too fond of reciting) that “congress/ parliament makes law, and judges enforce it.” Au contraire…

… A just system is the only one that is legal: trial-by-the-government-judge has always been unacceptable to people of probity.

Viz. The 1972 ruling of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals:

“The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge.”

Compounding their violation of common law and suffocation of  Justice, nowadays, arrant ‘judges’ do not even permit defence lawyers to  tell juries that it is a definitive and integral part of the Juror’s function to judge the justice of law enforcement. Thus is Trial by Jury by judges dismembered.

The modern judges judicably corrupt themselves beyond the pale, abetting and participating in ferocious tyranny with their perverted misconstruing and enforcing of inequitable, money-motivated,  criminogenic (crime-engendering) legislation.

Legislators and judges are exposed to all the temptations of money, fame and power, to induce them firstly, to overlook and deliberately disregard justice in the framing, passing, interpreting and enforcing of legislation; and secondly, to become actively biased between contesting litigants, causing politicians and judges to sell the rights and interests, and violate the liberties of the People.   Jurors are exposed to none of these temptations.

Jurors are not liable to bribery, for (according to Common Law stipulations governing Trial by Jury nowadays breached by the judges, voir dire, etc.), jurors are unknown to the contesting parties until they come into the jury-box. To preclude subornment and intimidation, Jurors’ identities may be kept unrevealed to the public, and if so decided by the Jurors, the trial may be held “in camera” (i.e., in private, with transcripts made available thereafter).

Further, the laws of human nature do not permit the supposition that twelve adult men and women taken by lot (indiscriminately) from the mass of the people, will all prove dishonest. (Common law requires   Unanimity* to pronounce a guilty verdict.)

*See the Constitutional Common Law recognised and instituted by King Alfred the Great, 871-899 C.E., in regard to the Principles of Unanimity, Impartiality and Random Selection of Jurors in Trial by Jury; Campaign Philosophy webpage Three.   As described, common law Jurors are not only protected from exposure but only ever serve once, twice or very infrequently on a Jury.

By contrast, however, judges are a permanent target for approach by those who would gain by threats and thorough intimidation of the judge and his relatives, or by corrupting him or her with irresistible gifts or untraceable payments into foreign bank accounts.

Jurors can hardly gain fame, power or money by giving erroneous decisions. Their office as juror is temporary. They know that when they have executed it, they must return to everyday life and they rely on all their rights being upheld by the judgements of jurors who will be their successors, and to whom they are an example.

This Trial by Jury Justice System is unique and inimitable: that is, it cannot be equalled by other legal arrangements. It places a curb on legislation the enforcement of which the Citizen-Juror adjudges would be unfair and tyrannical; and a Jury ensures to us-what no other court does-that first and indispensable requisite in a judicial tribunal: integrity.

The powers of juries not only place a curb on the powers of legislators and judges, but also imply an imputation on their integrity, impartiality and trustworthiness. These are the reasons why legislators and judges have harboured the most intense hatred for juries, and, so fast as they could do it without alerting the People to the loss of their liberties, have now destroyed juries’ power to judge on justice issues, and with it the Trial by Jury.

CONCLUSION

Trial by Jury is the foundation and protector of the compassionate, democratic civilised society, sine qua non. Trial by Jury is mankind’s Model Justice System. Trial by Jury emancipates humanity; precludes war, holocaust and crime; upholds human rights, liberty, and equal justice; and creates a transcending societal ethos conducive to comity, prosperity, egalitarianism, brotherhood, creativity and progress.

Trial by Jury is to be feared only by criminals, tyrants and their willing servitors.

THE RESTORATION CAMPAIGN

Outside of the ‘class’ of paid polititicians and state bureaucrats, ALL adults of We the People are duty-bound to educate and organise to achieve RESTORATION of Trial by Jury and legality to the status quo.

Yours sincerely,

Kenn d’Oudney.

www.democracydefined.org

_____________________________________________________________________________________

“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.”

I remembered attending a seminar once, and one of the speakers said that you can’t begin to get the answers you need unless you ask the right questions.  So I began to ask myself questions.  How do we change the law if we don’t understand the law?   If we don’t understand the law, how can we prevent tyranny?  Is there a reason why the constitution isn’t taught in schools?

In a moment of melancholy and pessimism, I had a paradigm shift, and impulsively enrolled into Law School.  My acceptance into a Graduate Law Degree hasn’t diminished my love of art, and in fact I think both pursuits are complementary to each other.  I pictured myself as someone similar to the lawyer character that Kathy Bates plays in the television sitcom “Harry’s Law”, except I’ll have an art gallery/art studio and lawyers office all in one instead of a shoe shop/lawyer’s office.

So anyway, I decided to go  to the Lifeline Bookfest to buy a bunch of law books.  I met a lady there who complained about the state of the world.  She said she just wanted to escape and go live somewhere else.  I told her I was going to study Law and that I was going to change the world for the better.  She rolled her eyes and wished me luck!

I purchased a range of books, from text books to sarcastic farsical black comedies, such that Shakespeare would be proud of, and found a fairly rare book by Evan Whitton written in 1989 called “The Hillbilly Dictator – Australia’s Police State:  How Democracy and the rule of law in Queensland were subverted, and injustice and corruption elevated to the commonplace”. The back cover states that:

“it has been said, and not entirely in jest, that Sydney is the most corrupt city in the western world, except of course for Newark, New Jersey, and Brisbane, Queensland.  These were the opening words of ‘Can of Worms’, Evan Whitton’s 1986 book about New South Wales.  Since then, the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland has produced the most closely documented study of corruption in an Australian police force.  More significantly, Fitzgerald QC showed how easy it is for a democracy to become an authoritarian state in which corruption and injustice are not just tolerated but elevated to the commonplace …”

Evan Whitton, a journalist and cartoonist, who also wrote “The Cartel:  Lawyers and Their Nine Magic Tricks”, which features a quote by Mel Barnett, a common lawyer in 1997 that he doesn’t “… think it’s a justice system as such; it’s a legal system” (p.11).  The Honourable Mr Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia, writes on the front cover that Whitton is “… an experienced and distinguished journalist ..[and]… must be listened to with care …[as]… outsiders often see error more quickly because they are without preconceptions”. Whitton proceeds to quote Judge Harold Rothwax of the New York Supreme Court where he says “truth must be the goal of any rational procedural system … [and] … without truth there can be no justice” (p.33).    However, the average person would never suspect that TRUTH was not important to JUSTICE here in Australia because of our adversarial legal system?  Many people simply don’t know what’s going on out there, unless you get caught in the net.  Why do we have a legal system, but not a justice system?  Think about the implications of that just for a moment.

Statistics in Whitton’s 1989 book state that in Australia about one percent of people in prison are innocent, and that about 80 percent of fairly serious criminals are found NOT GUILTY (p.11).  Obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with “the system”.  In an article by Charles Bruce Stewart, he links the “Slave Trading Codes” of Ancient Babylon, which were codified within the law, to the “modern laws of commerce, equity and civil/municipal jurisdictions”.

In the past it was Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who brought Socratic (logical/rational) argument into common use and it was in Greece that democracy was born.  The Bible is replete with references to Pharisees (Judges) and Lawyers, and both the American and Australian constitutions make references to the fact that lawyers are not allowed to hold political office.  Yet the Pharisees (Judges) and lawyers still poisoned Socrates and put Jesus on the cross to die, and Greece is now ruled by technocrats under the dictatorship known as the European Union.   I believe we are all in a spiritual fight against evil and tyranny because when you start digging into the law and investigate the meaning of things, you begin to understand how very powerful lawyers are, and how dangerous lawyers who become politicians can be.  On top of that, if the lawyer/politician displays psychopathic behaviour, then watch out.  This is why the separation of powers in the Australian and American constitutions is imperative.

My aim of undertaking a law degree will be to do my part towards restoring truth and the proper common law back to our courts.  Consider there are many innocent people who have been irreparably harmed by the courts.  One such innocent person is a man named Ian Henke, who at 75 years old is now in jail in Wacol, Brisbane.  Apparently Mr Ian Henke was denied legal aid even though he was a declared bankrupt,  Having suffered through lack of representation and inequalities associated with civil procedures he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses whom would have helped prove his case.  His wife maintains he was framed.  To find out about whom Ian Henke is, read the information and watch this You-Tube video that demonstrates Ian Henke’s good character:  http://sosnews.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,print,0&cntnt01articleid=155&cntnt01showtemplate=false&cntnt01returnid=80

Many people are disheartened, disillusioned and now bankrupt because of a system that does not support a fair go and equality before the law, so there has been a day organised called ‘The Australian Liberation Day:  Magna Carta Walk” on Friday 15^th June 2012. Support your rights to the Magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta ) and your rights to Common Law Jury trials.  To watch more about what is at stake, watch this 19 minute You-Tube video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=rs1ntqa5M2k&annotation_id=annotation_392430&feature=iv&v=f-ztGSKuC6s

Watch this short video on the Australian Flag and what it has come to represent:  http://www.larryhannigan.com/flag01.htm

Watch this video on the Australian Constitution and how it protects your rights:  http://www.larryhannigan.com/constitutionvideo.htm

Remember Gough Whitlam and Australia’s biggest political crisis?  Read about Australia’s Constitutional Crisis, and how the rot set in from 1975.  You’ll hear the words “Constitutional Crisis” bantered around on the ABC News, but they would never dare discuss what the Crisis is as their reporting is restricted by draconian media laws and their employer, the Australian Government Corporation, has a vested interest in your ignorance:  http://www.larryhannigan.com/federalgovernment.htm

Once you watch these videos, you will know why we must all vote “NO” on any constitutional questions in the upcoming Federal elections, because you can be sure the Government will not provide full and proper disclosure.    The Magna Carta was enshrined in law centuries ago, and there are monuments to it everywhere.  Protect the Magna Carta, because the Magna Carta protects you and your inalienable Rights which you are born with.  The Government only bestows benefits and privileges, but they cannot bestow you your Human Rights.

Happy Australian Day everyone.

Lest We Forget.

JULY 2011

W0711MCF:  STEWART MCFARLANE:  Creating Narrative and Mood Using Colour and Form (Oils & Acrylics)  (MASTERCLASS)  Thursday 7 to Sunday 10 July 2011 (4 days)       9.30am to 4.30pm  Earlybird $429 due 7 June 2011.  Price $455 thereafter.  Daily price $120. Working from life where possible to produce small studies of landscapes, still life and figurative studies to be juxtaposed to a large canvas to create a narrative.  Suit students who prefer colourful, stylized paintings.

AUGUST 2011

No workshops scheduled

SEPTEMBER 2011

W0911LAW:  JAN LAWNIKANIS:  Coloured Pencils:  Focus on Textures 1.  ONE DAY ONLY:  Saturday 3 September 2011        9.30am to 4.30pm  Earlybird $97 due 3 August 2011.  Price $115 thereafter. This workshop will give students of all artistic abilities the skills to handle coloured pencils effectively and creatively.  Suitable for absolute beginners

W0911BYR:  KRISSTIE BYRNNE:  Alla Prima Portraiture (Oils).  Saturday 17; Sunday 18; Monday 19 September 2011 (3 days)        9.30am to 4.30pm.  Earlybird $320 due 17 August  2011.  Price $350 thereafter.  Daily price $125. Alla Prima or Direct Painting means finishing a painting in one sitting.  Learn about drawing, colour, values, edges and temperature changes.  Suitable for absolute beginners.  Acrylic painters are also welcome.

OCTOBER 2011

W1011LAW:  JAN LAWNIKANIS:  Flowers in Watercolour.  ONE DAY ONLY:  Saturday 15 October 2011        9.30am to 4.30pm.  Earlybird $97 due 15 September 2011.  Price $115 thereafter. This workshop will help you develop professional techniques unique to watercolour.  Suitable for absolute beginners

NOVEMBER 2011

W1111LAW:  JAN LAWNIKANIS:  Coloured Pencils:  Focus on Textures 2.  ONE DAY ONLY:  Saturday 12 November 2011        9.30am to 4.30pm  Earlybird $97 due 12 October 2011.  Price $115 thereafter. This workshop will give students of all artistic abilities the skills to handle coloured pencils effectively and creatively.  Suitable for absolute beginners

W1111BYR:  KRISSTIE BYRNNE:  Alla Prima Portraiture and Still Life (Oils).  Saturday 26; Sunday 27; Monday 28 November 2011 (3 days)        9.30am to 4.30pm  Earlybird $320 due 26 October 2011.  Price $350 thereafter.  Daily price $125. Alla Prima or Direct Painting means finishing a painting in one sitting.  Learn about drawing, colour, values, edges and temperature changes.  Suitable for absolute beginners.  Acrylic painters are also welcome.

TERM CLASSES – DAY and EVENING

MONDAYS

Classes on Mondays begin again February 2012.

THURSDAYS

TH211AM:  ALAN MORRISON:  Studio Painting & Mentoring.  Thursday 10.00am to 1.00pm (3 hours)  Dates:  18, 25 August; 8, 15, 22 September; 13, 20 October; 10, 17, 24 November 2011 (10 weeks)  No classes:  1, 29 September; 5, 27 October; 3 November 2011.  Earlybird $477 due 24 January 2011.  Price $505 thereafter. Assisting artists of all levels develop individual directions in painting in order to achieve personal art goals under mentorship and guidance.  Pro-rata available – start anytime.

TH211BYR:  KRISSTIE BYRNNE:  Painting from Photographs Using a Creative Approach (Oils/Acrylics)  Thursday 6.30pm to 9.30pm (3 hours)  Dates:  15, 22 September; 13, 20 October; 10, 17, 24 November 2011 (7 weeks) No Classes:  29 September; 6, 27 October; 3 November 2011. Earlybird $310 due 11 August 2011.  Price $360 thereafter. Learn how to develop interesting and colourful paintings by taking ideas from photographs.  All subjects.  Suitable for absolute beginners.  Pro-rata available – start anytime.

FRIDAYS

FR211HAN:  MAUREEN HANSEN:  Colour and the Masters (Oils)  Friday 10.00am to 2.00pm (4 hours) Dates:  9, 16, 23, 30 September; 14, 21, 28 October; 11, 18, 25 November 2011 (10 weeks)  Earlybird $630 due 1 September 2011.  Price $680 thereafter. A semester of study of light, depth and colour, with references such as the Fauvists and Impressionism will help you understand how colour can improve your paintings.  Pro-rata available – start anytime.

I used to wear gloves all the time when I painted, but I have become more methodical in my approach. Once I have all my paint and brushes laid out before me, I am usually devoid of accidents and can paint without gloves. Rarely do I ever get any paint on my clothes, however wearing an apron does give you a false sense of security.

Clayton J. Beck once said, “And for my next demonstration I will paint wearing a white tuxedo”

I had recently started to try to keep all my paint tubes impeccably clean and neat, by wrapping them in sticky-tape to preserve the label so I could tell the name of the colour at a glance, and to fix splits in the paint tubes. So, now I had some time away from classes I went through my paint kit to tidy up and put some of my older paint tubes that I hadn’t used in a while through my paint wringer to push the paint to the top part of the tube. Then I was going to wrap them in sticky tape to try to clean everything so I would stop getting paint everywhere.

I had always tried to push the paint out from the bottom of the tube by hand, but this particular tube was old and I hadn’t used it for a while. Anyway it burst, and paint spurted onto my face, clothes and hands. What a mess!  Obviously I hadn’t wrapped this tube with sticky tape. I figured it would be easier to wrap it after it was neatly squeezed. Not anymore.

My New Years Resolution (once I clean the lids of my paint tubes and then the trolley) is to take Clayton’s advice. Slow down to become faster. If I take my time to keep each tube clean, and clean any spills around the lid each time I paint, I will become faster because clean up time will be shorter and neater, and therefore safer, which means more time to paint. So, the moral of the story is some learning and wisdom I have found the hard way:

• When squeezing a paint tube point it down and away from your face, and if you think there is a chance it has split, squeeze it inside a cardboard box
• Don’t oversqueeze the tube
• Have plenty of clean rags available for emergencies (old white t-shirts are the best)
• Use absorbent paper towels to wipe brushes on and for cleaning paint tube lids
• Have a garbage bag attached to your easel or trolley to put all rubbish in such as empty paint tubes, paper towels, dried paint etc. When at the venue, take home your rubbish bag
• When doing messy jobs like cleaning your paint lids, wear disposable gloves. The gloves remind you not to scratch your face, touch your furniture or anything else for that matter. If your kit is in a mess try only wearing your gloves while squeezing out your paint onto your palette.

I will be exhibiting four of my still life paintings, along with Lesley Shelley, Bernard Bush, Michelle Caitens , Tricia Reust, Elena Ventura, Jo Cucchiaro, Maria Paterson, June McCotter , Sandra Kane, Victoria Fitzpatrick, Judith Rosenberg, Adrienne Fleming, Anna Gonzalez, Donna Norwood, Lynn Norris, Margaret Turner, Yoriko Flemming and Alicia Maroto.  It promises to be a very interesting exhibition showing the many and varied approaches to painting the Still Life, one of my favourite genres.

Exhibition Dates:  Thursday 6 January to Saturday 12 February 2011

Gallery Hours:  Monday to Saturday 10am – 4pm

Opening night:  Friday 14 January 2011.  6.00pm for 6.30pm

Pine Rivers Art Gallery, Unit 7, 199 Gympie Road, Strathpine (parking off Mecklem Street)

For more information phone 07 3205 0555 or visit www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Remember you’ve got to be in it to win it.  Entry forms for the 2011 Scholarship will be posted onto the website in the near future.

The winners of the Beginner/Intermediate sections of Still Life, Portraiture and Landscape are Vera Tilley, Melanie Playle Dwyer; and Kate Breen respectively.  Wendy Stevens received a Highly commended for her Still Life and Dianne Williams was commended on her imaginative approach.

Vera Tilley

Kate Breen

Melanie Playle-Dwyer

Wendy Stevens

Dianne Williams

The winners of the Advanced sections of Still Life , Portraiture and Landscape are Pauline Johnson, Lesley Shelley and Pam Winson respectively.  Ingrid Robertson received a Highly commended for her pastel portrait and Jane Krimmer (Bell) was commended for her Still Life.

Ingrid Robertson

Pauline Johnson

Lesley Shelley

Pam Winson

Pauline Johnson - People's Choice

Rose Moxham - People's choice

The People’s Choice Award and one month at Incub8r Gallery was shared by Pauline Johnson and Rose Moxham.

Jane Krimmer (Bell)

Read the Terms and Conditions carefully as your information may be gathered to be on-sold to other companies who will try to market to you.  That means more spam, and even sponsors of such competitions might find their own email databases hijacked by the promoter and sold to the highest bidder (their competition).

Under law, a promotor has the right to conduct a prize without a permit, provided that the prize is awarded ramdonly and that there is no entry fee.  If there is an entry fee there must be a prize awarded for skill, so that the award is not based on luck.

Some competitions may state that the prize-winner is chosen randomly, however one must remain suspicious if one of the rules of the same competition is that you must assign over the copyright of your artwork.  That means, the promoter may place your image on t-shirts or anything else for that matter, sell them, and they do not have to give you any royalties or fees for the use of the image, or even promote the artist who created the artwork.  This is morally and ethically wrong, and NAVA, the National Association of Visual Arts, frowns upon this immoral activity.

Remember, always read the Terms and Conditions of competitions, especially if it involves your intellectual property, or if you have privacy concerns.

When competitions like this are advertised, it is my personal theory that the award will be given to someone with advanced abilities, rather than to a beginner or someone unknown to the promoter, as this would add a greater chance that the final image assigned over to the promoter would be one worth hanging onto.  Unfortunately this is hard to prove, however be warned, I think it is entirely in the realm of possiblity.

Looking at many of the art prizes that are handed out today, at least in Queensland, I strongly believe constitute a breach of gaming regulations.  When some prizes are awarded, most people wonder where is the skill in that?  Of course the art critic, the art historian and the gallery dealer with talk about track record, that the artist is edgy, young (discrimatory), emerging (also considered to be young therefore discriminatory), so that the whole industry is in bed with itself.  There can be no semblance of objectivity in art, if strict rules concerning skill are not adhered to.

It is ironic that the Turner Prize, handed out by the Tate Modern in Britain, and named after the famous painter, is now handed out to people who cannot draw and don’t paint.  The use of projectors is not cool or modern, it is plain speaking nothing short of cheating, as there is no skill required to trace.  If this government regulation were enforced, then the artists who deserve to be awarded prizes would be recognised, and the people who can’t draw, who have no imagination or vision (photoshop becomes the same as using a projector) and can’t paint should be left to be a legend in their own mind.

In order to bring skill back into art, perhaps a class action or two against a high profile art prize would help to turn the tide of opinion about what constitutes art and skill?

Preferred Artist brands:  Atelier Interactive Acrylics or Winsor & Newton.  Other brands are okay – should list pigments used and be artist quality.  Please note you only need to buy one set of colours which can be all one brand or a combination.

Atelier Interative Acrylics – Basic  Colours

Titanium white (S1)

Tinting White (S2)

Arylimide Yellow Light (S3)

Arylimide Yellow Deep (S3)

Yellow Ochre (S1)

Raw Sienna (S1)

Napthol Red Scarlet (S3)

Permanent Alizarin Crimson (S4)

Ultramarine blue (S1)

Pthalo Blue (S1)

Indian Red (S1)

Raw Umber (S1)

Burnt Umber (S1)

Burnt Sienna (S1)

Mars Black (S1)

______________________________________________________________________________________

* Portriature:  Fredrix Canvas Pads 14 x 18” or Portraiture grade linen Canvas or loose canvas taped to board.

* Alla Prima Still Life:  canvas should be no larger than 50cm on any side.

* Classic Still Life & Figure Long Poses – canvases can be larger.

* Mural painting – large to very large canvases

*Large Sta-Wet Palette with lid (highly recommended)

* 2 Painting knives

*Rags and good absorbent paper towels + plastic bag for own rubbish

* Mediums:  Fast Medium Fixer; Clear Painting Medium; Thick Slow Medium

*  Mediums Optional:  Impasto Gel; Modelling Paste

* Selection of brushes  – taklon – mostly filberts and flats (square shaped).  Some round taklon.

* Plastic Water container (old yoghurt container -large ok)

* note book and pen