As promised my friends the John Hurst Case and my views of the days (dirty ) dealings.
As my good friend GOT would say MY PISS IS BOILING!!!!!, no I will go further than that my shit is incandescent and my gorge has risen.w
Where to start, I shall assume I am reaching out to those who 'KNOW ' the background to this case (otherwise I will be writing for a week at least) if you do not know the details then follow the links to catch up OK! (see previous posts)
Lawful Rebellion, no that's not right its not loud enough, LAWFUL REBELLION, its an established and never repealed right of the |British people ( no not never repealed but rather UNREPEALABLE right!). Established in and by Magna Carta 1215 art 61, and the bill of rights, that friends was Johns defence against the, because of his entry into lawful rebellion, imposition of ANY tax upon him by the Queen, crown or any of their derivative bodies, such as the courts.
Pre proceeding there were approximately 35 interested parties gathered (apart from the defendants and their advocates/McKenzie friends) people from all walks of life and from places as diverse as Shetland (hi Dylan) to the south coast, North to south and East to West, little old ladies called Sheila who at (forgive my indelicacy please Sheila) 70 + years of age sat primly and when asked said "I am here because it just isn't right, its not the British way, this is all wrong) sheila could have been any ones Granny. Yet here she sat watching this case because what was happening 'wasn't right' I'll say!, ranging then through all ages downward to a 20 something young man who knew enough about anything you engaged him in to shame a teacher/ lecturer in the subject.
We were gathered outside when the local police inspector waltzed up!, high vis jacket and batman belt, he waited politely at the edge of our crowd for some minutes before we stopped our various conversations to let him through, which he took as his moment to try to 'lay down the LAW to us.....ha ha ha ha ha aaaaaaa! what a fucking HUGE mistake that proved to be for him, not only was he quietly put in his place and on his oath by John and others but he was so impressed he volunteered the information that we , as a crowd, had worried the clerk of the court and others that we would protest and try to disrupt proceedings.... we talked with him, we addressed his questions and posed a few of our own for him to answer, though funnily enough our questions were more rhetorical and backed by so much knowledge of the LAW that he had to accept them as statements. he enquired as to where we had all come from and was told what was in the above paragraph, he said there would be a police presence in the court, to be corrected in that a) it wasn't a court (per se) but an administrative hearing, and b) that any police present in that hearing (being in a 'court' were in fact no more than ordinary human beings dressed in funny costumes AND carrying arms (tsk tsk tsk). He to give him his due either knew the LAW or decided not to argue the point, and said " all we are hear for is to make sure that there was no disturbance to the proceedings" the wall of sound (Phil Spectre would have been proud enough to have fired a revolver in the air) of quietly voiced deprecation of the very idea that we would in anyway interrupt proceedings went on for some minutes and when died down to an occasional quip, said and I quote " well I can see that you are all responsible people and you have satisfied me that there will be no trouble" He then asked our leave to be excused ( no really he did!!!) and went to inform the Magistrates who were cowering in a back room somewhere!! queue much laughter amongst the gathered crowd!
Entry was made into the court where we were decided we would only stand or sit at a command from John, thus establishing his right as an equal in common law to the Mugjistrates on the bench. The early stage of the hearing was quickly turned into a quiet argument between John and the Clerk to the justices, when John asked if it was a 'common law' court, she was unable to much more than bluster " you don't have the right to question me", to which John corrected her saying she was a public servant and he had every right to establish the jurisdiction of the 'court'. She eventually decided that discretion was perhaps the better part of a lynch mob, and claimed the 'court dealt with common law, statute and many other forms of law?????
The crowd were in quietly festive mood and , though warned beforehand not to ooohhhh, aaaahhh or otherwise to much, definitely raised a distinct chorus of exclamations of general hilarity. It was obvious this Clerk had absolutely no idea of the jurisdiction rights , prerogatives, duties or liabilities of her own pet little 'court and magistrates'.
John appeared satisfied, the Clerk appeared flustered and was blushing with self contained fury, the magistrates to say the least were restless, well two were, the head and his mate to the left (our left) were, the old Battle axe to the right was sitting ( oh I wish I had a picture for you all) hands clasped before her not inestimable (horsey) bulk, gazing implacably down at the desk before her, for all the world as if she were awaiting the next little Samantha in the gymkhana to enter the ring with a fractious pony!
The first and only prosecution witness was called, a Mr Thomas from the Council Tax department (he was too young for this job and had the definite air of someone who had drawn the short straw long ago and come to regret his ill luck since) . He was no real match for John who questioned him about their correspondence, and whether he had checked the position stated to establish its validity, fair play to hm he said he had referred it to the councils solicitor.... but they had ignored a properly constituted council of Barons ...WTF...
what is LAW... is it the Rule of Law, or is it what they choose out of the thousands of acts/statutes to follow slavishly into oblivion....don't strain a braincell I will tell you the RULE OF LAW is the common law of the land, Statute runs a very poor second to OUR inalienable rights established under MAGNA CARTA and the BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!
The upshot of Mr Thomas's testimony was a declaration that he was complicit in an act of TREASON upon the people and the magistrates were instructed by John to issue an immediate warrant for the arrest of a traitor to the Crown ( now held in trust by the Barons Committee for the British people), this they declined to do through the Clerk of the (ha ha haaa) court who said and I quote " they would not be taking any action on the allegation of TREASON"!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shortly after this , and the voiced incredulity of the assembled witnesses, the Head Magistmug said and again I quote, " Mr Hurst we are not here for a history lesson and we are not prepared to sit here all day listening to one"......Well folks my flabber was ghasted I have to tell you...'not prepared to sit there' ...that must be a 'rush to justice ' scenario if I ever saw one, and that dear readers is actually not a legal or lawful thing to do.....
John claimed distraint, and the head magistrate was heard by me to say "steady mate"....'steady mate'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WTF is that as a comment???????
John pointed out that by the terms of his severance from the police he had to sign a paper saying he would not be guilty of TREASON , and having found out ALL was treasonous since the Barons Committee had been formed and the treaties of Nice and Lisbon signed and then ratified by the Queen (yes our queen sold us down the river) he being a man of good standing and conscience could do no more than refuse to render aid to the gang of TRAITORS that comprise the government, by withholding from their use any and all taxes which were in his power to withhold (not an unreasonable position seeing as the penalties in LAW for not doing so include both his pension being stopped and the possibility of life imprisonment for said TREASON)
I am not a stranger to these arguments, let me assure you, and they are completely valid as far as I can see....and I can see a little farther than the average Joe in the street believe me!, farce went to stupidity shortly there after, we had been guarded by at least 8 police people in all their enforcer finery, right up to benches retirement for the verdict......this was reduced to the presence of just one (1) woman PC who stood chewing gum as the verdict was delivered by a distinctly uneasy bench chairman ( I thought chewing gum in court was an act of contempt, you try doing it if you're up on a charge) ((I also thought having a mobile on was one too, yet all PCs in 'court' had their radio's on and in the 'court' remember they were actually just ordinary members of the public in funny costumes!!!!!
After an hours recess the magistmugs came back into 'court' after having us called back and then waiting a good 12 mins before making their grand entrance...we stood at Johns command , not their 'court' clerks. and sat when John motioned us to ...not when they said.....to listen to the Head Magistmug give his statement . Fearfully he said in advance of doing this that , and I quote " (he) hoped that we would listen to what he had to say as he had shown his respect by listening to Johns case" WWWWHHHHAAAATTTTTHHHEEEFFFUUCCKKK
We knew what was coming , but listened politely to him making no sound...and \i quote " bla bla bla listened carefully..bla bla ...to evidence from Mr Thomas..bla bla...not refuted...bla bla..reminders sent...bla bla..heard evidence £966.64 was owing...bla bla...Mr Hurd had advanced arguments in favour of not paying...bla bla bla council of barons...bla bla ...Queenie not replied..bla bla...and that they were not persuaded that the case was made...bla ..cannot support as regulations do NOT APPLY ( my emphasis), the argument was political and outside their remit...therefore find for the plaintiff (council) and a liability order was made ...
Solicitor for the council then asked for and got awarded £50 costs..................................
What we 35 witnesses witnessed today was a complete rejection of the common law of this OUR land , what we witnessed was TREASON , not once , not twice but three ties, we saw the advisor to the court unable to understand the simple concept that ALL law is based on MAGNA CARTA and the BILL of RIGHTS and that it is a persons first line of defence against an out of control and despotic government and its captive monarch....We are all affected by the rights that have been stripped from us today, every man woman and child in the British Isles and all its dependencies are diminished , belittled, enslaved by what happened to an HONOURABLE MAN WHO STOOD UP AND ASKED FOR justice IN A COMMON LAW COURT......
THERE IS NO MORE COMMON LAW FOLKS, WE HAVE NO REDRESS FROM THE TYRANNY OF A GOVERNMENT DRUNK AND OUT OF CONTROL ON ITS STOLEN MONARCHICAL POWERS, do you know what that leaves us...do you... its simple really....
Definition : the state of WAR is defined by the suspension of the common law courts and the common mans right to redress before them.......
DO YOU PERCHANCE UNDERSTAND!!!!!
From me Indyanhat it is goodnight and goodbye, but please be assured I go from here to another role in the fight against tyranny!!!
