Where Did Grand Juries Come From?

They are elements of the “Fundamental Law of the Land” and “Due process of Law” that are memorialized in the Grand Charter (Magna Carta) of 1215 AD which was signed by King John of England at Runnemede.  King John had gotten in the habit of ignoring these two elements of the law in England so the Barons saw fit that it be written down so that he would not forget it.   In particular the juries got there name from the word “Grand” of the Grand Charter.  Paragraphs 39 and 61 provide the law words that instituted them as the right of all freemen and freewomen to convene.  Since these apply to the Common Law of the Land which is neither repealable or changeable they came ashore in America when Freemen and Freewomen from England set foot on the land here and with each Freeman and Freewoman in compact with one another in a jural society; the Mayflower Compact was one such compact.

Did You Know? (Something Everyone Should Know)

1.         Did you know that the Judge is not the Court?

One must learn the following paradox; whereas, even though the Court is always where the Judge sits down, the Judge is NOT the "Court".   In addition, the Judge is required to uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court; that is, the Judge's sworn duty is defined by the Court.

2.        Did you know the Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature" which is governed by the Rule of Law?  That is:

• The Rules of Civil Procedure,
• The Rules of Criminal Procedure and
• The Rules of Evidence.

All of which:

• Is overseen by Constitutional law.      
• Which, in turn, is overseen by The Fundamental Laws of the Land and Due process of Law.        
• Which, in turn, are collectively, the Maxims of Law and the “unwritten constitution” which make up the Common Law.        

The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and "just" if it is allowed to function as these laws proscribe.

3.        Did you know that, in America, the Fundamental Laws of the Land is neither changeable nor repealable?

This is probably only true today in the re-inhabited republic State of Texas and will only remain so if We the People can hold on to it. 

“The idea that the government is superior to Fundamental Law, and such Law is changeable and repealable, has only been maintained during the course of governmental tyranny or usurpation.  The doctrine is not sound, nor was it part of the English Constitution.  The truth of the supremacy of the Law of the Land over government was to be resolved and acknowledged not in England, but in America.'

'The conflict over Life, Liberty and Property came to a showdown with the oppressive acts that King George III and Parliament brought upon the American colonies.  It was with this episode in history that the protection of Life, Liberty and Property by Due Process of Law was firmly and fully established.  It was here that the Law of the Land was upheld supreme over acts of government.”  from Life, Liberty and Property, subtitle: The Scope and Nature of our Fundamental Rights as Secured by and Recognized under DUE PROCESS AND THE LAW OF THE LAND, by Charles A. Wiseman, page 37

Since the legislative history of what happened in Utah on November 14, 2010, by the newly re-inhabited Republic of the united States has been kept secret from the people, it is not certain of whether an attempt to remove the supremacy of the People's Law of the Land over government was attempted.  Since actions speak louder than words it is the opinion of this writer that this was what happened there; albeit through ignorance of the Law of the Land.

4.        Did you know that any Judge who does not follow the above rule of law is violating his or her oath of office?

The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, there are judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following the rules in question 2’s answer, (as most attorney's do NOT as well, and are usually grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules) and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective - invalidates) every decision from that point on.

5.         Did you know a Judge that violates his or her oath of office is under a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case?

Another sad thing is that any judge who violates his or her oath of office and is the under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, rarely does so.  It usually only happens when someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of  procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.

Habeas Corpus: History and Definition

There are two definitions for habeas corpus: one formal and the other substantive. The formal definition may be found in any law dictionary. This essay is about the substantive definition. The substantive definiton of habeas corpus is not found in the dictionaries, but rather, in the history books.

In the early days (before Magna Carta), the king had many court systems operating: e.g. courts of Common Pleas, Exchequer, King's Bench, Chancery, etc. Each court had its jurisdiction defined. Of course, as an arm of government, courts are simply another form of bureaucracy with assigned functions. Like any bureaucracy, they always want to expand their jurisdictions. If a court exceeded its jurisdiction, a person could go to the proper court that should have had jurisdiction, and ask for an order directing the errant court stop its proceedings and release jurisdiction to the proper court. The phrase, "habeas corpus," meaning, "you have the body" was put at the end of pleadings to the second court asking that the first court be required to produce the body if it was being held. In its most common form, the full formal phrase for habeas corpus was "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum."

Of course, as you might surmise, that would pit one court bureaucracy against another. The Habeas Corpus worked quite well because, as long as the defendant was not a common enemy to both bureaucracies, one bureaucracy would not miss any opportunity to put down a competing bureacracy. The practical result of all this is that the defendant would often be ordered released, which was the second court's way of telling the first court that it didn't know what it was doing and had strayed from it's original jurisdiction (i.e. exceeded jurisdiction). The habeas corpus, as a by-product of bureaucratic turf protection, tended to serve personal liberty well. Over the centuries it became known as the "Great Writ of Liberty." It was the only known privilege or right that became stronger with the passage of time.

In summary, habeas corpus is the process of one court sitting in judgment of another court's jurisdiction. It is NOT a civil or criminal proceeding, but rather it is a family fight between courts. That is why, even though you find habeas corpus rules in the civil procedure books ( FRCP and Calif CCP) the procedures stand somewhat alone, independent of the rest of the procedures in those codes. The reason is obvious: Why would a court burden itself with procedural requirements? That stuff is ok for outsiders not part of the court system (i.e. plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys) but not ok for judges themselves.

In America, everyone can be sovereign. When you move for habeas corpus, you are activating your own court, which is separate and distinct from their court. You sit in judgment of the jurisdiction of their court. When you order them to produce the injured party and to demonstrate the injury, and when they fail to produce, then your court can issue an order to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Your court is a court of record and takes precedence over the statutory court.