John Hurst is in court today as he attempts to make use of the protection of Article 61 of Magna Carta to enforce his council tax protest. It is his view that the magistrates will ignore the law in this case, which will result in his pressing for a judicial review by the Supreme Court.
There is obviously a lot of interest in this court case, not least from the powers that be.
Over the past week there have been a large number of hits on the previous posts from the UK Parliament, the EU Parliament and the EU Commission, which gives a clear message that ‘the powers that be’ are very concerned, enough to ensure that some big hitters are being imported. I now understand that the magistrates court in LLandrindod Wells will have a district judge presiding.
For anyone to say that this is simply just a routine case of someone not paying their council tax and is of little interest would be to underestimate the real danger, which is and has over the past 30 years been to undermine our Common Law legal base in favour of the EU imposed Corpus Juris legal system.
As I have said previously, this is not just about Council Tax, this case is hugely important, because at one stage or another, a court will either have to decide on the legitimacy of our constitutional documents and uphold them along with John’s claim, or declare the British constitution dead. Either way there will be wide ranging impacts far beyond just council tax.
I shall bring you an update from LLandrindod Wells as soon as I get it.
UPDATE: 17:30
Have just heard from John who tells me that they did very well in terms of putting over the arguments. However the Magistrates decided that Magna Carta was “political” not legal and they had to comply with the statute and issued an attachment order.
John also says that they refused leave to appeal for a stated case (without giving reasons) and did not address the duress of circumstances argument.
In his opinion, these are grounds for Judicial Review (if we go down that route) and the council tax official commited an overt act of treason by claiming that the demand was made in the name of the Government.
There were about 35 supporters in Court to hear John put his case.
I am hoping that John will issue a statement soon with regards to today’s events and outline what he sees as the next steps. If he does so then I will publish on a new post.
My own view on the Magna Carta is that it is a contract between Monarch and People, a contract drawn up before any parliament existed, and together with the Bill of Rights forms the legal base from which all statutes are drawn, and the common law to which it returns when statutes are repealed. Hardly political is it, but possibly a good get-out for the magistrates at this level.
I feel that the failure to address the duress of circumstances argument was in itself a dismissal of common law.
We shall see where this tale takes us all from here.
update: 18:14
I thnk John can take heart that it seems that the US is also interested in this case, the newly elected tea party representatives perhaps. At 18:10 this post received a visit from..
Washington,
District Of Columbia,
United States
U.s. House Of Representatives (143.231.249.138) U.S. House Of Representatives
pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/john-hurst-in-court/
No referring link
IanPJ on Politics 
Thanks I almost forgot about this.
W00T!
Thanks for the update Ian.
I am on the edge of my seat here.
CR.
So am I. Am having trouble raising anyone on site (the court) at present, but am sure will get phone calls and emails later in the day.
Note: my contact details are on the ‘About’ page if anyone has any updates to send in.
Pingback: John Hurst in court | The Albion Alliance presents
Having been in this fight for over 25 years, I wish Mr. Hurst well.
The late Norris McWhirter and Rodney Atkinson laid evidence before the courts of England and Scotland against Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude on charges of Treason for their part in negotiating the Maastricht Treaty. As you can imagine the information laid was factually, legally and evidentially flawless. That all caused a flutter in the hen coop too. The authorities’ response was to make no response until Parliament had passed the Maastricht Bill and then to say that the new Act made everything all right.
I fear that Mr. Hurst will have the same sort of problem that an 18th century Jacobite would have had with a Hanoverian bench in trying to assert the Stuart claim. If Bonnie Prince Charlie had not turned back at Derby, he probably would have entered London to acclaim. Then the same judges would have had no difficulty in upholding the Stuart claim! In short, we need a revolution or rather a counter revolution before the law will come to our aid. (not that I am a Jacobite – merely drawing a parallel)
Still, it is worth trying and jolly good luck to him.
Well, that’s a crying shame.
“Political, not legal” !! What a godawful excuse.
I am fairly sure we have not heard the last of this. John will have other defences up his sleeve.
Thanks for chasing down, and issuing, the updates Ian.
CR.
Like many other individuals, I travelled down today with friends to show our support for what John, Tina, and team are doing for those British people who treasure our national identity and freedoms. Unlike previous Lawful Rebellion cases I have attended recently, this was carried out with a facade of dignity and courteousy.
John provided an impassioned, eloquent, well constructed, and downright powerful case for his retention of money from a corrupt regime. I’ll leave John to offer his own explanation of his case and legal/lawful summary of outcome.
In my own view the ‘hearing’ contradicted itself, openly espoused treason, made a land mark ‘decision’ regarding Common Law, and the only politics in that room were on the other side of the bench.
Let’s get this in perspective… IF the hearing had decided in John and Tina’s favour:
1. It would have set a precedent that Magistrates Courts did not have sufficient authority to deal with Council Tax cases
2. It would have confirmed superiority of Common Law over statute and EU Directive
3. It would have confirmed we have a treasonous government of “evil wrongdoers”
4. Ditto a treasonous Monarch
5. It would have ended a rather lucrative commercial venture between local judiciary and local authorities
Yes, this was a political hearing and not one concerned with actual Law or custom. There was no way the bench would have risked career and reputation by finding in the Hurst’s favour.
I hope those persons present who were paid by the local authority count out those 30 pieces of silver very carefully!
The cries of “treason, treason” by many witnesses present in the court followed the actors as they rapidly exited stage right.
I have to add that the police behaved impeccably throughout and were an example for future hearings across the land. I’m sure they found it as educational and inspiring as the rest of us present. Thanks guys!
I made new friends today. Expended my own network. Learned a great deal. Galvanised where I should focus my own personal Lawful Rebellion. Worth the tortuous drive there definitely.
Today was a victory. A victory in that we had a commercial hearing offer that Common Law has no place in their kangaroo courts. Reeeeeallllllyyyyy???? The ‘boos’ and cries of ‘treason’ as the Magi’s rapidly shuffled off – looking very uncomfortable and red faced – spoke louder than the political ‘decision’ of this hearing.
Thank you again Lawful Rebellion guys for what you are doing for the rest of us mere scrotes! 🙂 I will drag my scrawny backside down to be there for the next stage of this skirmish too.
I hate and detest Council tax and everything to do with it. Just thought I would make my position clear here.
However I was of the informed opinion that that passing of the Lisbon treaty repealed Magna Carta, and all the right and protections along with it. My informant was actually Lord Reese Mogg writing in The Times as to the disgracful act of Brown renaging on the election pledge to hold a referendum (on any further surrender of our sovereignty).
I dearly hope I and Reese Mogg are wrong !
My understanding of such matters is the following.
The Magna Carta is a contractual document between Monarch & People (via the Barons) at a time when the Monarch had absolute power. It is also a constitutional instrument, and was written in such a way that its effect would remain inperpetuity. i.e. for ever.
Magna Carta also expressly forbade any treaty which gave supremacy to foreign prelates, princes or rulers.
The Lisbon Treaty was ratified into UK law by means of a Statute, with an amendment to the European Communities Act, the European Union Amendment Act and a number of clauses in other Acts.
I also understand that precedent already in case law that a Statute may not repeal a constitutional instrument, either explicity or impliedly, it only serves to suspend particular sections of it for the period that the wording of the statute is in force, and thus returning to its original state should the statute be repealed or have clauses removed.
So the answer to your question is no, Magna Carta has not been repealed, it is not within the power of parliament to do so. They have merely hidden it from view by a blanket of statutes.
You may like to read this report by the House of Lords Select Committe on the Constitution dated 28th March 2008, called European Union (Amendment) Bill and the Lisbon Treaty: Implications for the UK Constitution.
As you’ll know better than I, IPJ, the 1689 Bill of Rights re-emphasises the absolute sovereignty of the Crown -in-Parliament, via the oath required of monarchs:
I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.
Now according to Wikipedia the present British Monarch made her Coronation Oath as follows (first part):
The Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?”
The Queen: “I solemnly promise so to do.”
Assuming British laws and customs in 1953 still included Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, which I think schoolchidren were taught at the time, then this oath is a binding reaffirmation of the validity of those foundation stones of our Constitution.
Interesting that both here and in the USA (and perhaps elsewhere) the people are struggling to maintain the ancient frameworks of their legal and social coherence against what appears to be the wish and plan of their temporary political masters. If there is revolution and rebellion, it is coming from the top of society.
Political not legal? What is this -Banana Republic?
Seems to me that this is just a lame excuse to further delay the decision and proceedings so that they can buy time to decide how to tackle this.
I’m not 100% on the process here but will they issue a ‘Decision’ of these proceedings like they do in Tribunals?
I’m interested to get a small leaflet together and personally post it along my road to wake up my neighbours. Any ideas and help on the content would be greatly appreciated. The more people made aware, the better because the mainstream press wont touch this will they?
Please reassure me that John Hurst is not the same as the John Hirst interviewed recently by Andrew Neill!
I can assure you that they are 2 very very different people.
John Hurst is a retired policeman, patriot and prince amongst men who is ignored by the media and establishment.
————————————————————–
How appropriate that the establishment adopt and fund John Hirst the axe murderer as their poster boy to push votes for prisoners
Very , VERY differenet people.
Pingback: John Hurst in Court_Council Tax… | Centurean2′s Weblog
Echoes of the Elizabeth Beckett case.
for refusing to pay her Council Tax. Her refusal was based on the following objections:
“It is illegal to pay a tax to destroy my country.”
Later she discovered just how illegally councils are acting.
Elizabeth has received very little mainstream media reporting, the little she has had has only been at local level. Nationally, the BBC televised 30 seconds on the Politics Show. Even though she was interviewed by a reporter, the BBC editor refused point blank to broadcast her interview. It was withdrawn. We ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?
It is quite clear that we are dealing with mindset which is at best totally ignorant and, at worst, working deliberately to subvert our ancient Constitutional history – The Birth Right of the People of England, (1700). This is still the law of the land today! How could this happen? The plan has been carefully contrived. The journalist Stewart Alsop wrote: “Knowledge is power and power is the most valuable commodity in government. So whoever knows the secrets controls the knowledge and therefore holds the power…”
This would help to explain why Harold Wilson removed the teaching of the Constitution from the British education curriculum, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Today, Britain’s universities DO NOT teach treason laws, the greatest crime against a nation; hence today, we find our nation and our freedom in the most critical situation.
Elizabeth felt driven to research the issue of Council Tax accounts, having observed various related, suspicious news articles in the press one of which involved the North West Regional Council of the UK purchasing a house in Brussels, a totally inappropriate action in view of the sufferings of the Cumbrian fishermen and farmers. This alarmed her to the fact that she might well, as a law abiding honest Council Tax payer, be assisting in the potential breakup of her country. We must emphasise that Constitutional Law is not a matter of politics, whether one votes to drive on the left or the right, but a matter of law like the dividing of Britain into ‘Lander’ such as the county of Kent becoming part of France, and Wales becoming part of Ireland etc.
http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Elizabeth%20Beckett%20-%20News%20Black%20Out.htm
I was there….what a statement to be able to make, I believe though nothing much has changed in the ‘normal’ world, this case and its future ramifications is far from over. To y mind it is a real rallying point and call for the re-institution of our proper constitution and rights at law.
Let no one henceforward try to tell me that the courts(lower at least) a) do not know of or understand The Rule Of Law and b) are therefore incapable of offering remedy or justice to the ‘common man’
Fridays pythonesque proceedings should and hopefully will go down in our history as the day real justice finally was smothered by the ignorant who have come to be in charge of this most precious of jewels in our history!
Nice to meet everyone, Hi Rob how you doin mate?, and will like you drag my scrawny arse to as many more cases as may be needed to finally gain our collective right to proper RULE OF LAW redress.
I have painted a picture of the day on my blog which may help anyone seeking to know how it was viewed by those present at
http://indyspareings.blogspot.com/
Thanks Ian
Spot on Indyanhat. The cracks are appearing,its just a matter of time till we nail the traitors. I would think that this will go to a higher court as John is not going to pay up and the Treasonous circuit judge exceeded his powers of now allowing john to appeal and not taking into account the duress of the circumstances. They made some basic schoolboy howlers which isn,t surprising because the clerk didn,t have much of a clue when john challenged her on the statute she was relying on. Hope to see the rebels again soon. Good luck
Hi. I was one of the supporters in the court to listen to Johns arguement on withholding the council tax. He did an outstanding job explaining to the District judge and majistrates why he was witholding payment. It has to be said that it was not a formal court of record with a court recorder taking a full account of the proceedings and that although it appeared to be a common law court where John gave his evidence under oath ,it was in fact in practice still a civil court with no impartial jury and i did not hear john say that he objected to the Judges refusal to appeal at the time ,so in my view the majistrates are already acting unlawfully as it is our right to appeal. I spoke to john breifly afterwards and he intimated they he is considering putting two commercial liens against the council representive (Treason) and another against a court official.
Pingback: Practical ways to combat the database state | IanPJ on Politics
Pingback: Watching the watchers | IanPJ on Politics
Pingback: Practical ways to combat the database state | Centurean2′s Weblog