Common Law Grand Jury Duties

“It is the duty of the Common Law Grand Jury to expose all fraud and corruption, whether it is in the political or judicial realm, and stop it!”

The history of the Grand Jury is found in our English Common Law; a body of judicial decisions stretching back centuries. It is also often called Case Law. Before a judge may hand down a judgement, he/she must refer to Case Law to ensure that it is not inconsistent with previous decisions.

Throughout this article we refer not only to English Common Law, but also to precedents set by United States of America (USA) Common Law courts. Common Law is commonly applied in the USA. Even though it has been cast aside by the Australian political parties and judiciary, Common Law remains the highest law of the land, and therefore we refer to both British and USA examples.

Common Law is also what underpins our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. It is the supreme law of the land, as stated in the Constitution Section 109, “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

All Australian state laws are subordinate to Common Law. This means that if a state law does not conform to Common Law it is not valid.

The Three Commie Stooges

Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, Prime Minister-to-be Bob Hawke and former Whitlam Government Minister and then High Court Judge Lionel Murphy — co-conspirators to remove the Queen from the Constitution?

When Gough Whitlam took out of the Constitution HM Queen Elizabeth II, who represents the Crown authority for all law in the Commonwealth, he committed HIGH TREASON. Any laws passed, and any judgments handed down in any Australian court since then are not valid.

At the same time, he also took the Preamble out of the Constitution.

The Preamble establishes only We the People as the Commonwealth of Australia, giving us sovereign power as the lawful government of the land. The Parliament and courts sit as the servants of the Will of the People….not the other way around.

This is what the Preamble states:

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established :

By taking the Queen out of our constitution Gough Whitlam removed all Crown Authority from the Parliament and courts. In effect, he ensured that all laws passed by any government since 1973 are not valid; they do not have the authority of the Crown behind them. How can they when there is no crown authority any more?

In the High Court of Australia case “Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte [1938] HCA 7; (1938) 59 CLR 369 (25 February 1938)” Justice Dixon handed down a judgement stating, “Where there is a disregard of or failure to observe the conditions, whether procedural or otherwise, which attend the exercise of jurisdiction or govern the determination to be made, the judgment or order may be set aside and avoided by proceedings by way of error, certiorari, or appeal. But, if there be want of jurisdiction, then the matter is coram non judice. It is as if there were no judge and the proceedings are as nothing. They are void, not voidable….”

Coram Judice means, “before a court having the authority to hear and decide (the case in question). “

If a court is sitting without the authority to hear and decide, it is Coram non Judice, meaning that it does not have the authority to hear and decide.

Judge Dixon’s decision became part of the body of Common Law, the highest law of the land. This means that any laws passed since then that are inconsistent with this judgement are not valid.

Therefore, anyone claiming to be a Commonwealth Officer administering the law in any capacity, be that a judge, magistrate or police, must be able to prove that they have the authority to act in that capacity going back to the Constitution and Common Law.

Since Gough Whitlam took the Queen out of the Constitution, no one sitting in Parliament or in any court room in the land today can prove they have the authority to do so if they have not sworn the proper Oath of Allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

In other words, Australia does not have a valid government any more. We have a criminal enterprise masquerading as a government.

Two Systems of Law

Since 1973, the political parties have operated a fake government using their own system of law: Admiralty or Contract Law.

Today, there are two systems of law in Australia.

• Common Law, our supreme law which is ignored by the judiciary and the police.
• Admiralty Law, or Contract Law as it is sometimes referred to, is the law of the Sea. Australia is not a ship at sea and therefore Admiralty law is not valid…it simply cannot be applied lawfully on land in place of Common Law.

Clearly, no nation can have two systems of law. And since our nation was founded as a Federation of States under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, the only supreme law that may exist is Common Law.

State laws may only be passed as long as they are consistent with Common Law under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.

Under Common Law all crimes are judged on the basis that, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”

When the people exercise Common Law in a Grand Jury, it becomes in effect a fourth branch of government, “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the Australian people.

Yet, today we have “magistrates courts” with no lawful authority to sit in judgement…and we, the People of the Commonwealth, have meekly accepted this as the norm. How wrong could we be?

Common Law Court Trial Jurors

Who comprises the Jury in a Grand Jury or in a Common Law court?

Traditionally, a Grand Jury should consist of 12 to 23 ordinary people from the community. Their task is to listen to the evidence presented to them and then decide if a crime has been committed, and if so what action should be taken. (Refer to this explanation: 6 of your questions about grand juries answered. Just remember that Common Law is Common Law no matter which country we talk about.

If evidence of a serious crime is presented, such as murder, causing serious bodily or mental harm, impersonating a federal or Crown officer, or TREASON, the Grand Jury is empowered by the Community to issue Indictments.

The indictments are then carried to a responsible body, like the police of a Common Law Sheriff, to carry out an arrest and bring the accused before a Common Law Court.

How to Convene a Grand Jury

Any body of people in a community may convene a Grand Jury. The group must agree on the need for a Grand Jury and the reasons for convening one.

Anyone in the Community may be chosen to sit on a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury will issue a notice to any community member it decides on.

Grand jurors may be excused “for cause,” meaning they cannot be fair and impartial.

Exceptions may also be made for other reasons, but those reasons must be compelling. For example, if sitting on a Grand Jury will severely disrupt a person’s personal or business lives, such as caring for a sick family member, or depriving a family of a breadwinner, an exception may be made.

Grand jurors are expected to serve anywhere from a month to a year on average. In most cases it’s a few months.​ The Grand Jury will decide how long and how often it will sit each week or month.

Grand juries are empowered to hear evidence from anyone in the community who has been harmed by another. The harm may be caused criminally, or by felony. For example, if someone has been injured by someone acting criminally, or if a banker or a bureaucrat have caused severe hardship to someone through their actions, a case can be brought before a Grand Jury.

Another example of bureaucratic harm includes someone (a government Minister or bureaucrat) imposing unfair restrictions on the ability of a person or persons to carry out their business due to restrictive legislation that causes undue hardship.

Where a corporation has confiscated property unfairly, such as for failure to pay unlawful taxes on property (property rates) a person may bring their grievance against the Council Mayor, CEO, and even the Minister for Local Government before a Grand Jury to seek redress.

A Grand Jury may sit anywhere it chooses, but a college lecture type of room is prefereable. If possible, this room should be as close as possible to the prosecutor’s office.

A Grand Jury does not require a judge. The only people needed are the Jurors, the court officers, and the jury clerks who will keep a record of the proceedings, call witnesses and their documents, photos and video/audio.

There is no time limit on how long evidence may be presented to the Grand Jury.

It is usual for the accused to testify on his/her own behalf. Only the prosecutor may question the accused; the defense cannot. Grand Jurors can submit questions to the prosecutor to ask witnesses.

At the close of evidence, the prosecutor reads legal instructions and the law to jurors. The grand jury may then vote an indictment, also known as a “true bill.”

To vote to issue an indictment you only need a quorum; that is, a majority of the jurors must agree to issue an indictment. For example, if there are 12 jurors at least 7 must agree. 

Trial by Jury

Quote from the New York Constitution Article 1. S8 “As understood at common law and as used in constitutional provision, ‘jury’ imports ( is composed of) a body of twelve men.

A common law court hears trial cases. A regular jury decides the facts.

A jury decides:

• In criminal cases – whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt the decision of the jury must be unanimous.
• In civil cases – guilt is proved by a preponderance of evidence of more than 51%​.

A jury consists of 12 ordinary men and women summoned to the Common Law court to hear the evidence against an accused person, as well as their defence. After all the evidence has been presented, it is the duty of the jury to deliberate to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent.

A juror needs no qualifications to be summoned to sit on a jury, provided they are upstanding members of the Commonwealth of Australia. Members of the judiciary, politicians, and convicted felons currently serving time in prison may not be jurors.

A Common Law Court is led by a Court Adjudicator, whose job it is to ensure the Court performs its duty correctly, according to the law. The Court Adjudicator has no authority to decide on the fate of a defendant, or to direct a jury to make a decision. The Adjudicator’s job is simply to run the court.

It is the duty of the Jury to execute Justice, and sometimes Mercy; their decisions cannot be second guessed. In other words, the decision of a jury is final.

Nor can a jury be interfered with or tampered with while it sits, “…the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact”

Other members of a Common Law court include a Bailiff and one or more Sheriffs, as well as at least one Justice.

Jury Nullification

“The jury has an unalienable right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
— John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States Supreme Court, 1789.

Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote “not guilty” if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury “nullified” the law.

The American Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community,” and relied on juries “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. The same principle applies in Australia as well.

“Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurispudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must re-examine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine. — Judge David L. Baselon

Rights and Sovereignty

Only people are sovereign and have rights. Bureaucrats, in their capacity, are not sovereign and have no rights. They only have authority granted to them by the People and are subject to the law.

To deprive the People of their sovereignty, as the political parties and bureaucrats have sought to do in Australia, it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting the People to claim they are “citizens” of that entity.

The political parties have played many tricks on the People of the Commonwealth of Australia to make us submit to their authority, without our knowledge. Perhaps the worst abuse against us is the Electoral Act which forces all Australians to vote. This means that we all must register to vote, putting us into the power of the politicians so that we are forced to submit to their edicts.

A Remedy for every Injury

William Blackstone stated, (a legal maxim) “Every right when withheld must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress. “

In the third volume of his Commentaries, Page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. “In all other cases it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.”

And afterwards on Page 109 he says, “I am next to consider such injuries as are recognizable by the Courts of Common Law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall with the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or martime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the Common Law Courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England (and the Commonwealth by default) that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.“

Therefore, statutes and legislation that deprive people of their rights, or deny them a remedy for an injury, have no force of law at all.

To state it simply, Common Law guarantees every man and woman the right to exercise their rights, and to seek justice and restitution for any harm done to them by another, whether the harm is caused by a private person or a government official.

It should also be understood that no government entity can cause harm by itself. There is always a person acting as the agent for that entity who is responsible for any deprivation of rights or harm done. Therefore, when protesting against any harm caused to you by the entity you must always bring action against the person representing the entity.

For example, if you receive a parking fine issued by the local council the person who issued the ticket, as well as the person trying to enforce the fine, the Mayor, the Council CEO and the State Minister responsible for the law that enabled the Council are all responsible. You must include all these people, and anyone else involved, in your complaint against the fine.

Please ask any questions below and we will attempt to answer them.