II.   Instruments & Transactions

An Indictment is a formal Instrument issued under the Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) standards of instruments and writing first formed under King Henry VIII of England from the 16th Century as a form of Deed of Condemnation whereby upon the proof of merit of a written Complaint, a Suit as a Trust is created charging that a person therein named has done some act, or been guilty of some omission, which, by law, is a public offense, punishable on indictment.

The key principles and elements of an Indictment since its invention are:

(i) That a Statute defining an “Indictable Offence” in the form prescribed under the mode of Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) promulgated by Westminster and associated Colonies, Plantations and Dominions exists. An Indictment cannot be issued if no Indictable Offence defined by law exists; and

(ii) That an allegation is formally made under Oath before a Justice of the Peace, usually in the form of a sworn Affidavit of Complaint supporting a formal Instrument known as a Criminal Complaint or “Complaint” signed by the Complainant being the same as the Affidavit; and

(iii) That a draft Indictment (originally a Writ and then by late 17th Century a Bill) listing a Statement of Offence, the Particulars of the Offence, Description of Property, Description of Persons with the Complaint, Affidavit of Complaint and any other evidence attached as annexures; and

(iv) That the draft Indictment is presented to a Grand Jury or a Preliminary Hearing or “Hearing” to determine the merits of the accusations and the facts of the case. If the Grand Jury or Justice(s) of the Peace at a Hearing determine there is a case to answer, then the Indictment is endorsed and the accused is asked for their Pleading at which time they may elect to have the matter heard by a Jury or by Summary Judgment of a Justice.

While the range of indictable offences and nature of Indictments has continuously changed under the mercurial nature of Statutes promulgated under Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge), there continues to exist three fundamental foundations to all valid Indictments, which remain in force and effect today, being Valid Inquisition, Good Faith and Joinder under Oath:

(i) Valid Inquisition means “No Indictment shall be made but by inquest of lawful people duly returned by the sheriffs or bailiffs of franchises, without any nomination first made by any person except by the officers according to the law; and if any indictment be made to the contrary, the same shall be void” [as per 11 H.4. c.9]; and

(ii) Good Faith means “Any Indictment (or Appeal) done in malice, envy or revenge is false and void and that the indicators, procurators and conspirators shall be punished by imprisonment and fine” [as per act “False Indictments and Appeals” first at (1421) 9. H.5. st.1. c.1. and then made perpetual in 1439 (18 H.6. c.12)]; and

(iii) Joinder under Oath means “No entry in the records of a suit that a person has appeared or that the proper person is enjoined unless the proper person “propria persona” comes before a justice and swears on oath he is the same person in whose name the said suit was sued, or that some other credible person or his council makes such oath for him” [as per act “False entries of appearance of plaintiff” first in 1432 (10 H.6. c.4) and then made perpetual in 1439 (18 H.6. c.9)].

In terms of the gradual marginalization and deliberate and willful corruption of the process and formality of Indictments and Justice:

(i) Prior to 1848, the use of a Grand Jury in determining a valid Indictment and the necessity of the existence of a valid Indictment before proceedings was protected in the United States under the 5th Amendment and in the ancient laws of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England; and

(ii) In 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c.42), a new concept called “Summary Jurisdiction” was introduced whereby for certain misdemeanor offences, the criminal proceeding could be heard, determined and judged by a Justice of the Peace instead of a Jury with the Justice of the Peace acting effectively as “judge, jury and executioner” in blatant contempt and defiance of one of the oldest maxims of Justice and Law in Civilized History; and

(iii) In 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c.43), the necessity of an Indictment to proceed in all criminal matters was marginalized by the permission to proceed on certain offences no longer considered indictable with the either existence of a Complaint alone or a new type of instrument known as a Criminal Information or simply “Information” formed by the Prosecutor – thus creating the absolute Injustice and falsity against any claim of true Rule of Law that a man could be considered “Guilty” before being “proven innocent”; and

(iv) The expansion of offences considered able to be dealt through “Summary Jurisdiction” and without proper Indictment continued to grow throughout the 19th Century until the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c.49) where extraordinarily for the first time in history, open admission that Summary Justice is to condemn one as guilty before having the opportunity to argue innocence was explicitly stated, particularly if one is considered an infant (or child). No longer were Justices of the Peace compelled to prove Criminal Information or Complaints but to merely prove the poor character and incompetence of the accused; and

(v) The Indictment Act 1915 effectively marginalized Indictments to the High Court of the United Kingdom and greatly expanded the power and range of offences to be summarily condemned by Magistrates Courts. By the 1930’s the use of a Grand Jury in the United Kingdom has ceased to function; and

(vi) In the United States and in many locations bound in some manner to the laws of Westminster, the use of Information and Complaints without the existence of any valid Indictment as well as the denial of any Justice and Fair Process in being considered “guilty” before having the opportunity to argue “innocence” prevails within the Magistrates Courts, particularly with the preparation of such paperwork and the creation of financial instruments before such matters are even heard at pleading.