This document explains the Grand Jury:
Grand Jury Briefing.
By John Hurst. The Magna Carta Society.
Our ancestors customs made the Common Law of England and Wales. At each Coronation the King or Queen is elected and swears to continue to Govern, not Rule, according to the common law, Acts of Parliament that are consistent with the common law and two peace treaties which are the foundations of our Constitution, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights.
These treaties were not Acts of Parliament and cannot be repealed by a Parliament because they were between The People and The Crown, no Parliament was involved. The Coronation Oath, set by the Coronation Oath Act of 1688, also binds Crown officials and forbids infringement of the common law.
Acts of Parliament and Regulations that are in compliance with the common law are the law of the land and should be complied with. This is “Amending” (improving) the common law and is allowed by Article 13 of the declaration of Rights. Extending the vote to women is an example.
Decisions made by all Crown officers, including police and Council officials, that are consistent with the common law and valid Acts of Parliament and Regulations should take into account the whole of the law, not just the latest enactments.
They must also bear in mind that only the Courts may decide what the proper interpretation of an Act or Regulation is to be. These principles will be covered in two extracts from an authority on the subject at the end of this document.
For about the last 40 years this requirement has not been taught in schools or to officials and Members of Parliament. They have been falsely led to believe that Parliament is “Supreme”, the latest Regulation on its own is “The law” and officials cannot be brought to account for their actions, however unjustified and oppressive they are. That, however, is not what The Queen, whom officials get their authority from, swore to do.
Our wise ancestors knew all about the possibility that corrupt officials would oppress them if they thought that they could get away with it. The protection that they established was the jury system which consists of both “Grand” (Large) and “Petit” (Small) juries.
If you have not heard of the Grand Jury you have been deceived about the powers that individuals have to defend themselves. This document will explain further below. It is a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a “Case to answer” and the matter goes directly to a Crown Court by a procedure known as a “Voluntary Bill of Indictment” that cannot be blocked by corrupt officials of any kind.
By the common law, no free man can be punished unless they have been put on trial and found guilty by their peers (Equals). This works both ways. Officials who commit crimes should also be brought to justice. The legal definition of “Justice” is to punish wrongs and recognise “rights” meaning the legal entitlements that all loyal subjects expect The Queen and Her Officials to put into practice.
This is what Article 39 and 40 of Magna Carta, the peace treaty that ended an English civil war in 1215, says:
“39. No freeman shall be taken or [and] imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [and] by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice…”.
The wicked secret agenda of the present legal establishment is that they have given themselves a monopoly on who is, and who is not, to be prosecuted. That is the reason why “Grooming gangs” and the likes of Jimmy Saville and Anthony Blair, the war criminal, have escaped justice.
Here is the remedy that has been hidden:
Statute the Fifth (1351)
1351 CHAPTER 4 25 Edw 3 Stat 5
A STATUTE made at WESTMINSTER; In the Parliament holden in the Feast of Saint Hilary; In the TWENTY-FIFTH Year of the Reign of K. EDWARD the THIRD.
None shall be taken upon Suggestion without lawful Presentment; nor disfranchised, but by Course of Law.
ITEM, Whereas it is contained in the Great Charter of the Franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold, nor of his Franchises nor free Custom, unless it be by the Law of the Land; It is accorded assented, and stablished, That from henceforth none shall be taken by Petition or Suggestion made to our Lord the King, or to his Council, unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done, in due Manner, or by Process made by Writ original at the Common Law; nor that none be out of his Franchises, nor of his Freeholds, unless he be duly brought into answer, and forejudged of the same by the Course of the Law; and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redresseed and holden for none.
This is published on the legislation.gov.uk web site and as such is a statute in force. Note that it re states Magna Carta (The Great Charter) and is consistent with and confirms that Crown officials must comply with the common law.
The secret that you need to know is contained in these words in the statute: “ unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done,…”.
The common law power of the people is that “12 may judge one” unanimously beyond reasonable doubt for crimes up to and including those carrying the death penalty.
In the preliminary Grand jury hearing 12 to 23 allows for some redundancy but a minimum of 12 must decide that there is a “Case to answer” on the balance of probabilities. With a limit of 23, 12 will be a majority.
In the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 the requirement for indictments (criminal charges) to be approved by a Grand Jury consisting of 12 to 23 “Good people of the neighbourhood” was changed to allow indictments to go directly from the police to the Courts and a Petit jury of 12, or not go to Court as is now commonplace. This, I submit, is an example of a purported “Act” that is not consistent with the common law.
The 1933 Act is how the legal system was corrupted and the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service in 1985 has given further opportunities to disguise and hide misconduct by officials.
The “Presentment” alone however was not mentioned and therefore was not repealed in the 1933 Act. That means that these words in the statute of 1351 remain in force: “Unless it be by Indictment or Presentment…”.
You need to know what a “Presentment” is and how 12 to 23 loyal subjects can put corrupt officials in front of a Jury of 12 to answer for their crimes. Crimes such as a Secretary of State imposing a dictatorship harmful to The People without good and sufficient cause by a crime of Misconduct in Office or a constable failing to bring a rapist to justice.
The video attached to this document will further explain what a Grand Jury and a Presentment are. They are not called into being by Court officials, they can be formed spontaneously on the authority of the common law by loyal subjects who have reason to believe that serious crimes have been committed.
These passages are from a book by the leading authority on the subject “Understanding Common Law Legislation“ by .F.A.R. Bennion. Oxford University Press 2009.
“Implied ancillary rules
I end this opening chapter by pointing out that elements in the legal thrust of an enactment may be left unexpressed by the drafter. Often, they are to be treated as imported because of a general presumption based on the nature of legislation. This is that, unless the contrary intention appears, an enactment by implication imports any principle or rule of law (whether statutory or non-statutory) which prevails in the territory to which the enactment extends and is relevant to its operation in that territory. This may be referred to as an ‘implied ancillary rule’.
An Act of Parliament is not a statement in a vacuum. Parliament intends its Act to be read and applied within the context of the existing, corpus juris, or body of law...”.Page 99.
Earlier in his book, the late Mr. Bennion QC had this to say:
“It is the function of the court alone authoritatively to declare the legal meaning of an enactment. If anyone else, such as its drafter or the politician promoting it, purports to lay down what the legal meaning is the court may react adversely, regarding this as an encroachment on its constitutional sphere. Lord Wilberforce stated the classic position:
Legislation in England is passed by Parliament, and put in the form of written words. This legislation is given legal effect on subjects by virtue of judicial decision, and it is the function of the courts to say what the application of words to particular cases or particular individuals is to be. This power, which has been devolved on the judges from the earliest times, is an essential part of the constitutional process by which subjects are brought under the rule of law—as distinct from the rule of the king or the rule of Parliament; and it would be a degradation of that process if the courts were to be merely a reflecting mirror of what some other interpretation agency might say . . .”.Page 80.
In other words, the law of the land is what the Courts decide it is, not the latest Act of Parliament or Regulation looked at in isolation.
The Courts use juries to decide what the people accept to be lawful conduct by officials and what they do not.
By the common law, juries can decide both guilt and if in any particular case the application of an Act or Regulation is just. This is known as the “Perverse verdict”. For many years our Judges have not told juries about this, which is another way in which the state monopoly on prosecutions has been given effect.
The people need to know that Grand Juries are the common law remedy to get accused officials in front of Petit Juries without being obstructed by corrupt officials including Judges.
Our ancestors fought for our birth rights and resisted tyranny. Now it is our turn to act to pass on to future generations intact what we inherited.
The alternative is another civil war.