Interview mirrored from The Full English website, with minor edits by me.
John Hurst a Defence at Common Law. The real common Law. In a real court!
Daddy Dragon interviews John Hurst.
Links to the script of this programme, which includes the references that are quoted will be posted below.
Introduction.
Today we have John Hurst, a retired police constable of the Old School. By that I mean that when he joined in 1978, constables were taught the law of The Constitution and Sir Robert Peel’s “Principles of policing” which were based on the common law.
Interview.
What is “Lawful Rebellion”?
“Lawful rebellion” is the way that our ancestors discovered to protect themselves from Kings who broke their Coronation Oaths to rule according to the law of the land and became oppressive.
What do you mean by “Discovered”?
By trial and error. The sort of King who was most likely to break his Oath is what we now call a “Psychopath”. King John is the best example.
What sort of things did King John do?
He suspended the laws in his favour, particularly the reasonable limits on taxation. He slept with his Barons wives and held their sons hostage. In the end the Kingdom rose against him. It was commonly accepted that whoever won a battle against the King should get the job because God was on his side.
Why was an Oath so important.
The taking of Oaths had a religious significance. It was widely believed that “Oath Breaking” was a “Mortal Sin” which meant a certain confinement in Hell after death.
What did you mean by Oaths being used as “Protection”?
One of the characteristics of a psychopath is that they are entirely focussed on themselves and feel no shame in lying. That means that they cannot keep an Oath.
What is the remedy if a King breaks his Oath?
The remedy is called “Diffidatio”, the withdrawal of allegiance followed by trial by battle. This passage from Blackstone’s “Great Charter” covers it:
“This conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it’s inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it’s descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England…”.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.
So is Magna Carta based on these legal principles, diffidatio and trial by battle?
Yes it is. Magna Carta, the Great Charter of 1215, was and exercise by The People of these rights. They were also used in 1688 and 2001.
Tell me about events in 1688.
The best way to explain is to read the entry on the “Bill of Rights 1688 in the government web site “legislation.gov.uk”. If you read the whole thing it explains the events of “The glorious Revolution.
Also, the BBC programme by Lucy Worsley called “Histories Greatest Fibs Part 2” explains events from a historians, not a lawyers, point of view. It is available on Youtube so no license is needed to view it.
In the 2017 “Brexit” Judgement the UK Supreme Court upheld the Authority of the Bill of Rights in these words:
Para. 44. In the early 17th century Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74, Sir Edward Coke CJ said that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”. Although this statement may have been controversial at the time, it had become firmly established by the end of that century. In England and Wales, the Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed that “the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall” and that “the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall …”
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf
So “Lawful rebellion” was activated in 2001?
It was, the diffidatio part until the present, by a group called The Magna Carta Society of which I was a founder member and legal researcher.
The best way to learn the legal and historical arguments that were used is to read the originals on the Magna Carta Society Blog:
https://magnacartasocietyblog.blogspot.com/p/mcs-short-history.html
Does this mean The Queen has committed treason?
No, but her Ministers (Evil counsellors) have. In any case, she is not English by the common law rule that nationality is determined by grandparents. She is a Prussian.
What does being in “Lawful Rebellion require the loyal subject to do?”
To do what Article 61 requires, to support the Barons Committee and to “Amerce” The Queen. That means to withhold the revenues of The Crown (taxes) and to seize Crown buildings and land.
Are there any limits on the actions the subjects may take in “Lawful Rebellion”?
Article 61 specifically mentions not harming The King and his immediate family. Otherwise, it is legally logical to conclude that force may be used against those who resist what Article 61 allows.
This is based on the traditional definition of “The Queens Peace” which is defined as “The good order that ought to prevail in society. Infractions of the law by a King or his officials must be caught by that.
Some say that the activation of Article 61 means that all Acts of Parliament are somehow void and do not apply any more. What do you think?
I say that only what is specified in Article 61 is the common law. I do not agree that compliance with an Act of Parliament is voluntary for individuals.
Conclusion.
See you next week. If anyone has questions please send them to my Web site and we will do our best to answer them.
The Secret People 