That guy tells quite a tale.

Who does this guy think has the authority, both civil and criminal, to allow or not allow evidence to be employed in a cause of action at law?

Which case?

How about this:

"Plaintiffs sought the emergency injunction as part of their effort to have their own experts conduct a forensic electronic inspection on the machines as part of attorney Sidney Powell’s case alleging vote fraud and ballot manipulation during the Nov. 3 election.

“Defendants are hereby enjoined and restrained from altering, destroying, or erasing, or allowing the alteration, destruction, or erasure of, any software or data on any Dominion voting machine” in the three named counties, Batten’s order said."

Here:
[bizpacreview.com]

Which Statute gives authority above the common law?

If no one claims authority over the common law, then it is reasonable to conclude that a plaintiff takes his case to a grand jury, so as to approve or disprove of the cause of action, based upon the discovery of evidence found while the grand jury investigates the cause of action on behalf of the plaintiff.

The independent, non-government controlled, grand jury made up of people (citizens if you will) whose duty is spelled out in more than a few Statutes and common law court cases.

Example:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Why would someone accusing someone else of such an infamous crime as election fraud be asking a Circuit Judge for permission to take the case to a grand jury?

I'll give you at least one useful answer:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

If a grand jury (regular citizens) in command of all legal jurisdiction civil and criminal issue a subpoena, hire a constable to deliver the notice to give access to the machines to the grand jury, to validate the claims on behalf of the accuser, then the grand jury then has the information needed to validate the claims made by the accuser, and if the facts discovered during the investigation warrants the issue of a presentment, then the grand jury hires a constable to ensure that the accused is served with their opportunity to defend themselves against the accusers case in a Court of Law before The People who are represented by Trial Jurors, who are again those elite known as members of The People (citizens if you will) and they are not the employees employed by the people, such as a constable, or sheriff, or legislator, or vote counter, or dog catcher.

Please sir, can I have a court case?

Maybe, bend over and let me check out your ass, and just maybe you can have your day in court, when I feel like putting it on MY calender.

Fucking bullshit.

I can only hope this is up to date and true.