welcome letter

 Common Law and Court.

Cannabis prohibition is an unjust law. State funded empirical studies have proved time and again that cannabis is harmless and has many medical attributes without causing dependence or mental illness.

The Report. Cannabis, The Facts, Human Rights and the Law, is in-depth and explains its usefulness to the World

Ratified Principles, U.N. Resolution of the 10th December 1946. Principle 5

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Magna Carta: Articles 39 and 40

39  No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgement of his equals and according to the law of the land.    

40  To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.

Articles of Universal Human Rights

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.


Laws are made to protect. We rely on people in authority and with supposed knowledge to guide us and tell us the truth.

In this case they have NOT told us the truth. The prohibition of cannabis is an UNJUST LAW.


Under Magna Carta, if a law is said to be unjust, then a jury of our peers can judge on the justice of the law, in addition to the facts and on the admissibility of evidence.

*Legem Terræ, the Law of the Land, the Constitution, the Common Law and the intellectual, semantical approach to language, define crime as: "any act of injustice committed with malice aforethought; mens rea". To be found ‘guilty’, the standard of judgement applied is that the accused has to have performed an act of injustice committed with malice aforethought  - not simply to have done something which is “prohibited by legislation.” No mens rea: Not Guilty.

You are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing if a jury is present. Pleading Not Guilty and 'electing' (saying you want) a Trial by Jury is a positive option (if it is still available to defendants, as EU rules are trying to stop it).

However, even if you are being heard in a "trial-by-judge," you still want the judge to learn the facts of the investigative studies conducted by world-respected academic and research institutions which are collated into THE REPORT. Lawyers and judges generally have no idea at all of the Clinical Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the official empirical studies which exclude cannabis from prohibition. Like most of the public, they know only of the government and pharmaceutical companies' biased speculative papers and 'opinions' which are not founded on the definitive Empirical Studies. This is one of the many reasons why reading of THE REPORT has such a profound effect.

One way of approach is when you know the name of the judge who is hearing your case, you can put THE REPORT into an envelope and send it by registered post addressed to him at his chambers. It should be accompanied by a covering letter enclosed, also written and addressed to the judge, stating you are presenting your own defence and herewith present the court (judge) with THE REPORT as expert documentary defence evidence. Please see Amicus Curiae page 133 of THE REPORT.

If the named judge changes at the last minute, then you should have another current edition of       THE REPORT at the ready to present to the new judge.

Remember, lawyers (barristers, solicitors) are forbidden from presenting evidence or defences which "dispute the legality of the law" even if it exonerates the defendant.

Hence, you have to present THE REPORT yourself and state that you are presenting your own defence as it is your right to do so.


Regarding the Jury leaflet and its relevance to Cannabis Relegalisation, Amnesty and Restitution:

The Jury leaflet is a document comprising an educational asset of the Democracy Defined RESTORATION CAMPAIGN to re-instate the genuine Common Law Trial by Jury. The Trial by Jury was defined and prescribed by the Great Charter Constitution (Magna Carta, 1215). The Constitution cannot legitimately be superseded, amended or transgressed by any government, head of state or court. Amendment of any Article of the Constitution requires a large majority (virtual unanimity) by plebiscite (lower class). In any case, for a variety of reasons legal and moral, Trial by Jury remains the sole legitimate means of due process.

In the authentic Constitutional Trial by Jury, the Juror has statutory and constitutional Sovereign Supreme Power, with the explicit Duty to judge both law and facts as a Mechanism of Equal Justice to protect the population from unjust, venal, unfounded, arbitrary (i.e., tyrannical; illegal) or otherwise unwanted, vexatious, or apocryphal legislation.