The right to a jury of ones peers.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80
Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.
CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 4G
Indictable offences
Offences against a law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months are indictable offences, unless the contrary intention appears.
Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition)
What is INDICTABLE?
Proper or necessary to be prosecuted by process of Indictment.
Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition)
All indictable oflenses are either felonies or mis- demeanors,
Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition)
What is INDICTED?
Charged in an indictment with a criminal offense. See INDICTMENT.
Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition)
What is INDICTMENT?
A written accusation of one or more persons of a crime or misdemeanor, presented to, and preferred upon oath or affirmation, by a grand jury legally convoked.
Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition) Definition of UNALIENABLE: Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. … The Law Dictionary Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition)
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively.
Common law right
The right to a fair trial is ‘manifested in rules of law and of practice designed to regulate the course of the trial’.
Strictly speaking, it is ‘a right not to be tried unfairly’ or ‘an immunity against conviction otherwise than after a fair trial’, because ‘no person has the right to insist upon being prosecuted or tried by the State’.
Although a fair trial may now be called a traditional and fundamental right, clearly recognised under the common law, what amounts to a fair trial has changed over time
For many reasons .
Many criminal trials of history would now seem strikingly unfair.
When federal Parliament creates criminal offences, the question arises as to whether such offences should be tried by judge and jury, or tried summarily by a magistrate
(Star chamber.)
The framers of the Australian Constitution inserted section 80, which appears to confer a right to jury trial.
A difficulty results from the use of the words ‘on indictment’ in the opening words of section 80.
This has at times resulted in a narrow construction of the section, for the High Court has said that it is only when prosecutions are brought ‘on indictment’ that the right to jury trial arises; where Parliament has authorised summary proceedings, and summary proceedings are brought, the right to jury trial is avoided.
It is contended that there have been three eras of interpretation of section 80:
an initial period in which the section was regarded as laying down a fundamental law of the Commonwealth;
a much longer period in which a narrow, ‘procedural’ approach was taken; and
the last decade, which reveals a tendency to revert to the broad approach.
The broad approach, which is necessary if citizens facing substantial liability to imprisonment are to enjoy a genuine right to jury trial, was also supported by prominent judges in dissenting judgments during the second period .
What is a COURT OF STAR CHAMBER?
This was an English court of very ancient origin, but new-modeled by St. 3 Hen. VII. c. 1, and 21 Hen. VIII. c. 20, consisting of divers lords, spiritual and temporal, being privy councillors, together with two judges of the courts of common law, without the intervention of any jury.
The jurisdiction extended legally over riots, perjury, misbehavior of sheriff’s, and other misdemeanors contrary to the laws of the land,yet it was afterwards stretched to the asserting of all proclamations and orders of state, to the vindicating of illegal commissions and grants of monopolies,holding for honorable that which it pleased, and for just that which it profited, and becoming both a court of law to determine civil rights and a court of revenue to enrich the treasury.
It was finally abolished to the general satisfaction of the whole nation.
King Charles I
Parliament abolished the Star Chamber in 1641 after abuses of power.
?
IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT
1980 – SECT 8
Transcribed enactments.
The enactments referred to in section 3 of this Act shall have effect and be construed as provided by that section and are set out in this Part under the Divisions mentioned in section 1 as being included in Part II and such Divisions shall be deemed to be Divisions of this Part.
Division 1—Elections
Freedom of election.
[1275] 3 Edward I (Statute of Westminster the First) C.V.
And because elections ought to be free, the King commandeth upon great forfeiture, that no man by force of arms, nor by malice, or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election.
Division 2—Habeas corpus
[1640] 16 Charles I c. X
An Act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.
Whereas by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land:
(2) And by another statute made in the fifth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is enacted, That no man shall be attached by any accusation, nor forejudged of life or limb, nor his lands, tenements, goods or chattels seized into the King’s hands, against the form of the great charter and the law of the land:
(3) And by another statute made in the five and twentieth year of the reign of the same King Edward the Third,
It is accorded, assented and established, That none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to 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 proceeds made by writ original at the common law, and that none be put out of his franchise or freehold, unless he be duly brought in to answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law, and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none:
(4) And by another statute made in the eight and twentieth year of the reign of the same King Edward the Third, it is amongst other things enacted, That no man of what estate or condition forever he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, without being brought in to answer by due process of law:
(5) And by another statute made in the two and fortieth year of the reign of the said King Edward the Third, it is enacted, That no man be put to answer, without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original, according to the old law of the land, and if any thing be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law, and holden for error:
(6) And by another statute made in the six and thirtieth year of the same King Edward the Third, it is amongst other things enacted, That all pleas which shall be pleaded in any courts before any of the King’s justices, or in his other places, or before any of his other ministers, or in the courts and places of any other lords within the realm, shall be entered and enrolled in Latin:
(7) And whereas by the statute made in the third year of King Henry the Seventh,
power is given to the chancellor, the lord treasurer of England for the time being, and the keeper of the King’s privy seal, or two of them, calling unto them a bishop and a temporal lord of the King’s most honourable council, and the two chief justices of the King’s bench and common pleas for the time being, or other two justices in their absence, to proceed as in that act is expressed, for the punishment of some particular offences therein mentioned:
(8) And by the statute made in the one and twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth, the president of the council is associated to join with the lord chancellor and other judges in the said statute of the Third of Henry the Seventh mentioned:
(9) But the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted.
II .
And for asmuch as all matters examinable or determinable before the said judges, or in the court commonly called the star-chamber, may have their proper remedy and redress, and their due punishment and correction, by the common law of the land, and in the ordinary course of justice elsewhere:
(2) And forasmuch as the reasons and motives inducing the erection and continuance of that court do now cease:
(3) And the proceedings, censures and decrees of that court, have by experience been found to be an intolerable burthen to the subjects, and the means to introduce an arbitrary power and government:
(4) And forasmuch as the council-table hath of late time assumed unto itself a power to intermeddle in civil causes and matters only of private interest between party and party, and have adventured to determine of the estates and liberties of the subject, contrary to the law of the land and the rights and privileges of the subject, by which great and manifold mischiefs and inconveniencies have arisen and happened, and much incertainty by means of such proceedings hath been conceived concerning mens rights and estates; for settling whereof, and preventing the like in time to come.
III.
Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any of the judges, officers or ministers, thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined:
(2) And that from the said first day of August neither the lord chancellor, or keeper of the great seal of England, the lord treasurer of England, the keeper of the King’s privy seal, or president of the council, nor any bishop, temporal lord, privy counsellor or judge, or justice whatsoever, shall have any power or authority to hear, examine or determine any matter or thing whatsoever, in the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or to make, pronounce or deliver any judgement, sentence, order or decree, or to do any judicial or ministerial act in the said court:
(3) And that all and every act and acts of parliament, and all and every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any of the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn unto question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed, and absolutely revoked and made void.
THE FAMILY LAW COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Prior to 1975, adultery was a criteria in the grounds for divorce.
Older people may remember those days when private detectives would sneak around at night poking cameras into bedroom windows, trying to catch a married man or woman going for it with someone who was not their true wife or husband.
Well, some of the Judiciary also were caught and they didn’t like it, so they resurrected the old Star Chamber Court, a single Judge with no Jury court.
That “court” was outlawed by the Church of England and most western nations for over 400 years.
Regardless, they went ahead and created the FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 ( Act No 53 of 1975) which states.
Section 21
(1) A court, to be known as the Family Court of Australia, is created by this Act.
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
Be it Enacted by the Queen,
(Note: Her Most Excellent Majesty removed)
the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows
the Queen
(Queen of Australia)this Queen is an administrator CORPORATION) running under rules of usufruct.
You can find evidence of this in other articles on this web site we shall not go into that just now.
It is a MYTHICAL PATRON with NO authority invented in 1973 by E G WHITLAM.
Again there are other articles that dive into the complexity of this trespass.
Their Senate is a Private Corporation and Foreign to our Senate.
House of Representatives of Australia
is Corporate and Foreign to our House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia
The FAMILY COURT of AUSTRALIA is NOT a COURT under OUR,
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)[63&64 Vict.] [Ch.12]
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act declares Operation of the Constitution and Laws.
This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be BINDING on the Courts, Judges, and People of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State
Therefore – these Corporate so called Judges sitting in their Corporate Courts have NO Authority over us the Sovereign People of the Commonwealth of Australia
Nothing is as it seems and all is a deliberate trespass against us and our unalienable universal rights.
Family law act 1975.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/
Imperial Acts Application Act.
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html