If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system, a judge is beholden. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be led by a judge.
The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old-established laws through their verdicts.
Most courts are courts de jure (equity) and offer the sole process of arbitration. If you can avoid controversy you can avoid court, by agreeing to pay, for instance a fine, subject to the claimant meeting your criteria, proof of claim, or proof of a binding bilateral contract
If you find yourself in court, ask the judge what jurisdiction he is operating under – it is unlikely you will receive a response. Once you enter a court, you are then subject to the jurisdiction of that court, and the rules under which it operates.
The trappings of the court may give a clue to the jurisdiction operating in the court.
If there is a judge and a jury (12 persons) present you are in a court of law operating under common law (court de jure), there will be an injured party (plaintiff) and an accused (defendant) and (usually) legal teams acting as prosecution and defence lawyers or barristers. In a common law court it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant, it is not the duty of the defendant or the defence team to prove innocence (not guilty). The defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. The role of the judge is to direct the jury on points of law, but NOT to direct them on how they should decide. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge decides the penalty to impose, usually based on precedence (previous similar incidents) which can be a fine, imprisonment or both.
If there is only a magistrate (JP) or judge present and no jury, then you are almost certainly in a civil court operating under maritime law. There may or may not be council for prosecution or defence. A civil court usually operates under maritime or admiralty law (law of the sea) and because they deal in summary judgement and not justice there is an automatic presumption of guilt. If you have been summoned (invited) to attend a court for breaching a statute, your guilt is assumed before you even enter the court. If you provide the court with the joinder they need (name, address and date of birth) you will be found guilty and punished. Usually under statute law there is no injured party, no victim, most are victimless crimes. It is very telling indeed that usually a crime against a corporation (fraud, embezzlement etc.) is often treated as more serious than a crime against another human being (mugging, GBH etc.), somewhere societies priorities have got skewed or corrupted and it is almost certainly by design and not accident. An obvious question that must be asked – if our prisons are so overcrowded, why do we imprison people who have committed victimless crimes?
All judges swear an oath of office to the monarch, this allows them to preside in common law courts only, without their oath they are judge impersonators, which is unlawful. If you enter a court which has no jury, you are not in a common law court (court de jure) you are in a corporate office mock-up, that appears to be a court but is operating under civil/equity law and you are accused of breaching company policy in some way. If there is a judge, he should have on his person, his oath of office allowing him to operate as a judge under common law jurisdiction. Without his oath of office he has no authority whatsoever and should be arrested for impersonating a judge. If he has his oath then any charges can be heard in the court once the judge has sworn in a jury of twelve jurors, and any common law offences can be heard and the victim (plaintiff) identified.
Judicial oath of office
I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm (or colony), without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.
I, (name), do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.