Friday 8th October 2010 – A Friday October morning at the Magistrates` Court in the small Welsh town of Brecon seems an unlikely setting for a case that promises to have a fundamental effect on the entire British legal and tax-collecting system. Amongst the usual run-of-the-mill cases that turn up in a small rural community was one involving Powys Council`s application over the non-payment of Council Tax, issued against John Hurst and his wife Tina.
Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, John Hurst is no free-loader. He is a highly responsible and patriotic citizen, a former police officer with an impressive record. His decision not to pay is based on thorough research indicating that councils have no legal right whatsoever to levy such a tax on its citizens. Believing this to be true, John would have therefore committed an offence by actually paying the tax, as the majority of us already have. Given that ignorance of the law is no defence, it places the overwhelming majority of hitherto respectable British citizens in an invidious situation and the courts in an even worse one.
John, a committed supporter of Lawful Rebellion, arrived at the court with his wife, along with her Mackenzie Friend. The court official took down the details but then returned some time later stating that Tina Hurst’s case was no longer listed. This was an extremely odd development, given that Tina is registered disabled with visual impairment and would have hence qualified for a Council Tax rebate, which had not been awarded and for legal aid should she decide to take the case further. It would appear that suspicions of skulduggery would not be entirely unfounded. The official was challenged over this and shortly afterwards brought out a more senior figure, a pleasant young man, who invited the little party into a private office. There he declared that on checking his information, Tina Hurst was on the list after all!
Much later, the group was invited into Court. John Hurst, representing himself, immediately questioned as to why there were only two magistrates on the bench instead of the required three. The Council`s solicitor stated that he had to agree but that this was not contentious. John immediately retorted that it was and insisted on exercising his legal right to have three magistrates present. The court officials had to concede and the group was asked to leave the Court whilst a third magistrate be found.
Amongst John Hurst’s contentions, was the fact that this court had no jurisdiction to make a firm decision on his case. Therefore, it was welcome when the council solicitor appeared, telling John that the court had decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for trial on Friday 5th November at ten a.m.
The group re-entered the Court shortly afterwards for the formal decision to be announced, but John consequently and successfully challenged the by now hapless and bewildered clerk of the court over a number of legal and procedural issues.
It was not all over, as John stated that he had not yet received disclosure of the Council`s documents. The Council`s solicitor conceded that they had only been posted on 29th September, two days earlier. The clerk then stated that in order to enable Counsel to examine the Hurst’s skeleton argument, the time of the coming hearing would be delayed by thirty minutes. John immediately stated that he failed to understand how this would allow Counsel to assimilate the information as it consisted of thirty pages. The clerk again seemed baffled by this, as she was unaware of this attachment. The Council`s solicitor was immediately questioned and became somewhat incoherent. He asked if John had actually sent the documents with the attachment, to the Council. John stated that he had and furthermore had a printed e-mail acknowledgement from the Council to prove it.
Hence, it was established that the Council`s solicitor must have knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose vital evidence to the Court, a criminal offence.
The Court was hastily concluded and the officials and the solicitor were assured that a formal complaints would be issued, including one to the police requesting the arrest and charge of Powys Council`s solicitor for withholding evidence from the Court, which, moreover, would have not have been discovered but for the unfortunate clerk`s statement.
It must be said that John Hurst`s performance in Court was magnificent, assured, authoritative and knowledgeable at all times, invariably leaving the court, including the magistrates, trailing along hopelessly out of their collective depth. He and his wife deserve every possible support for their courageous stand, which is an important stepping stone on the way to exposing the inefficiency, unlawful conduct and even possible corruption on the part of those responsible for administering our legal system and the behaviour of other state-funded officials, particularly in this instance, those employed by Powys Council.
This court report was originally written by journalist Robert Green.
read comments at pjc journal link below
Following the court report published yesterday, John Hurst has issued the following Statement for publication:
So much for the events at Court. The significance of this case to us all is the reason why a local authority, or any other revenue gathering body, no longer has lawful authority to tax us. It is because The Crown, and all officials who act in the name of the Crown, have breached the contract with the people of these islands to rule us according to our laws and customs.
That contract was acknowledged in the peace treaties know as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights. The present Queen publicly swore to uphold those laws and customs at her Coronation in 1953. In 2009 she gave Royal Assent to the unlawful pretended statute which gave effect to the Lisbon treaty and allowed foreign potentates of the European Union to issue directives and regulations which her officials then impose as if they had the authority of Parliament.
From that moment the UK changed from a constitutional monarchy to a tyranny, and we were subjected to the abuse of the state’s coercive force in the absence of the rule of law.
This is not the first time this has happened in history and our ancestors successfully resisted using our common law right to the protection of duress of circumstances confirmed in Chapter 61 of Magna Carta.
The “Skeleton Argument” that is before the Court explains what is at stake:
i. The respondent resides in a rented cottage in Powys and the Claimant has presented him with a bill for Council Tax for £900 in the name of The Queen.
ii. The Respondent has made a conditional offer to pay if the claimant can produce evidence that the claim is made lawfully. In the absence of such evidence, he is asserting that breaches of treaty obligations between The Crown and the people and the activation of the procedure specified by Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and, alternatively, the Common Law defence of duress of circumstances justify his withholding of the payment.
iii. The first matter at issue is the authority of The Queen (and Her officials) to issue demands for taxes at a time when she is under the supervision of a Barons Committee lawfully constituted under Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215. If the demand was made in the name of a Corporation and not The Queen then the Respondent has no contract with them and therefore no liability.
iv. The second matter at issue, which the Respondent alternatively and independently relies on, is the Common Law right of the subject to invoke the defence of duress of circumstances because The Queen has breached her Common Law treaty obligations with the people that were confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 and as a consequence the Respondents life, liberties and property are threatened.
i. The respondent has been a legal researcher for the Magna Carta Society (the MCS) since 1998 and helped produce the research paper on the possibility of raising a Barons Committee in 1999.
ii. Michael Burke, also a member of the society, petitioned the Courts to uphold the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1998 and 1999 without success. The Judgments were referred to in the research paper and were part of the material relied upon in its arguments.
iii. Members of the public were invited to send postcards to The Queen urging her not to give Royal Assent to any statute which purported to give effect to the Nice Treaty in the UK. Several hundred thousand did so.
iv. The Queen failed to respond to public petitioning and there was no evidence that the then Prime Minister intended to change his counsels.
v. Members of the society petitioned each member of the Houses of Lords and Commons not to give their support to any statute relating to the Nice Treaty.
vi. 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to address the petitions from the MCS and members of the public. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established. Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001.
vii. No response was made to the Barons Petition within the specified 40 days or has been to date. The conditions for Lawful Rebellion came into effect.
viii. The then Government used a purported statute (the House of Lords Act 1999) and the Rules of Parliament to deny a majority of the Hereditary Peers access to the House which prevented them exercising their Common Law right to be consulted about and vote on statutes. Officials took possession of their Letters Patent. They were replaced by hereditary Peers, many in dubious circumstances (the cash for Peerages scandal).
ix. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Nice Treaty on 26/2/2002.
x. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Lisbon Treaty on 19/06/2008. Direct rule from the European Union commenced in late 2009.
xi. Displaced hereditary Peers challenged the validity of the House of Lords Act and obtained an admission that it was invalid from a Government Minister, Baroness Ashton, on 20th September 2008. To date, no remedial action has been taken. This is described in the submission listed at Para 4. i. Above.
1. The Respondents Submissions Opposing a Liability Order.
i. I am a British subject of good character and have twice sworn the Oath of Allegiance, as a soldier and as a police officer. Both of those oaths require allegiance to the law, not an office holder, and require the individual concerned to make judgments about the lawfulness of his, or her, actions. So does the Judicial Oath.
ii. Regarding Ch. 61 of Magna Carta, I submit that a Baron’s Committee was lawfully raised, that their Petition was served on The Queen on 7th February 2001 and that the provisions of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 apply until the Committee or a duly constituted Constitutional Convention decides otherwise. I have sworn allegiance to that Committee. In these circumstances I submit that Powys Council has no authority to issue a tax demand to me.
iii. Regarding the defence of “duress of circumstances”, I have an honestly held belief that my life, liberty and property are at risk because laws that are repugnant to the Common Law are being applied within the UK. I did not place myself voluntarily in this position. Refusing to pay taxes to The Queen, who, together with certain evil counsellors, is responsible for this situation and is in breach of the Common Law and her Coronation Oath is an act of self defence on my part. Any refusal by Crown Officials to acknowledge the restraints that they are subject to will be further evidence that my beliefs are well founded.
iv. The Judicial Studies Board document referred to at Para. 3. iv. above confirms that it is for The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence of duress does not apply.
2. Remedies Sought by the Respondent.
i. For the reasons given above I respectfully submit that no properly directed Court has authority to try me for refusing to pay Council Tax. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to make a ruling on this I claim my right to have the issues that I have raised put before a lawfully constituted (complete with all hereditary Peers and without post 1999 Life Peers) House of Lords in order for a case to be stated. That is because the defects in the House of Lords Act 1999 noted above call into doubt the validity of the new “Supreme Court”.
ii. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to do that I ask for these matters to be put before the Supreme Court for a case to be stated. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of that Court for the reasons given.
As reported yesterday, the Brecon court has decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for for a new hearing on Friday 5th November at ten a.m, and I am sure that John would welcome support.
(note: it is not a trial, but a hearing before an administrative court which is hired for the day by the Council, including the magistrates).
Edward Spalton says:
The late Norris McWhirter (of Freedom Association and Guinness Book of Records fame) and Rodney Atkinson laid information before the English and Scottish courts against Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude upon charges of treason whilst they were engaged in negotiating the Maastricht treaty.
As you can imagine, the facts were not in doubt and the charges soundly based in the then existing laws.
The authorities’ answer was silence until Parliament had passed the Act ratifying the Maastricht treaty. They then said that the Act made everything all right.
Several of the treason laws under which these charges were laid have since been repealed by clauses tacked on to Bills here and there and no MP noticed.
Christine Melsom says:
Over the years we have experienced many of our members going through the court system and then to prison.
The National press are no longer interested in reporting these case unless the defendant is a pensioner and is sent to prison.
Several Isitfair members did receive prison sentences for witholding all or part of their council tax, but this stopped when Richard Fitzmaurice was splashed all over the National Newspapers wearing handcuffs.
The message then went out from Government, that never again should a pensioner be imprisoned for non payment of council tax.
Criminals commit crimes from rape to torture- then walk free from court?
Another News Blackout when it comes to council tax–recall the Elizabeth Beckett case? when she took action against this tax.
A FREE MEDIA?
c) Tax on fuel should be reduced since its effect is arbitrary by any taxable logic.
So Mr. Blair altered legal aid so much that even people on my income (less than £9,000 pa) cannot get it and treason needs a very narrow certificate from the lawyers. I therefore ask you to take the steps necessary under 2a) above if it is by any means within your power.
I am taking a case on the illegality of some aspects of council tax in the high court: I was granted oral review, but thought it wiser to have counsel rather than act on my own and Leolyn Price CB QC has kindly agreed to represent me.
The lowering of trust apparently intentionally has led to loss to shareholders for whom legal protection is needed. The people in Parliament seem to have little knowledge of the law nor the legal protection of the people, only the desire for power and in this case globalisation. William Blackstone said, “Law is not a matter of opinion.” This, our representatives seem not to have learnt.
The House of Lords is the Curia Regis to advise the Monarch. The suggestion that a man who has twice been asked to leave the government for malfeasance should be given a position in the Lords tends to further distrust of government at a time when trust is essential if the nation is to come together and rise above the present discomfort and lack of trust in this government and the Curia Regis. It gives an impression of irresponsibility in government which is outside our principles and traditions. But apparently fits in with the teaching of five-year-olds that they are part of a wider community without being based in their own. Mr. Blunkett, Mr. Brown and others have published books paid for by the tax-payer effectively dispersing any concept of our Christian heritage. Mr. Brown, as an example, in his white paper has said he intends to give the Royal Prerogative to Parliament or even to the people in one sweep of the pen without recognising the meaning of the prerogative removing our history and our constitution for which our ancestors fought.
I now put before your Lordship the grounds of high treason against those presently governing this nation.
a) Firstly so that the so-called removal of the prerogative power from the Queen comes directly under the 1351 Treason Act since the Act of Constitutional Reform by taking the prerogative from the monarch, the power being in Sir Edward Coke’s words a part of the monarch and cannot be taken from the monarch even by act of parliament and removal, therefore, comes directly within the phrase “if a man compasses or imagines the death of the sovereign . . .” it is treason: “if a man levies war against the sovereign …” and by taking over the position of the Lord Chancellor and turning it into something else this comes into “slaying the Lord Chancellor …”. And as head of constitutional affairs and the justices by false laws that treason is further laid and supported in later treason Acts and backed by the 1351 Treason act in the words, “… and because that many other cases of the like treason may happen in time to come which a man cannot think or declare at this present time; it is accorded, that if any other case of supposed treason which is not above specified…” is to go before the justices and the king to be judged treason or felony
b) Under this heading I name the imposition of automatic into “the Royal Assent”. for this has been claimed “as to the status of convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both houses of parliament the Prime Minister is in doubt …” (quoted from 1972 letter from 10 Downing street) This conflicts with the statement in Rogers Walters, “How Parliament Works”, Pearson and Longman fourth edition which is in use in the speaker’s office and in most county libraries where the Royal Assent is clearly defined: “A Bill presently before both houses needs the Royal Assent as the third element of Parliament before it can become law.” Rogers and Walters add the concept of the assent being ‘automatic’ and it is relevant to the treason that the phrase was inserted in 1911 for King George V to be persuaded to pass the Parliament Act and other legislation against our constitution. under the framework of the Treason and Felony Act of 1848, ‘any person who compasses or imagines devises or intends to depose … in order to force constrain or compel her or they to change their measures or courses … shall be guilty of felony”, conviction being transportation for not less than seven years with hard labour.
In the book on the constitution by Nigel Knight, tutor in Law at Cambridge University, a further aberration and compelling of the mind of the monarch on the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was given against the wishes of George V.
That this chicanery has continued to be used does not make it less heinous and it is relevant that the claim of 1972 from Downing Street connived with the entry into the EC and hence the EU.
I write now, in view of the danger, after the attempt of Michael Foot to nationalise banks, now being effected under the same intention, but with the camouflage of a world economic crisis, to ask your Lordship to declare the automatic assent void and illegal under the constitutional statute including that of 1795 made perpetual in 1807, 1817 and 1848 and only repealed under the automatic assent, Rogers and Walters claim the assent by convention had become automatic since Queen Anne was the last monarch to send a Bill back. In fact, William III, George III, William IV, Queen Victoria and, as Asquith well knew, Edward VII (because the Bill had been handed to him), had all returned Bills.
Most of the ordinary people of England such as myself and my friends, know the principles of our constitutional laws for which the freemen and barons of England fought and forced on John with the help of the bishops and arch-bishops at Runnymede.
The cruelty, despite constitutional constraint, which successive governments have forced on us involves a mercilessness that has to be held as treason against the sovereign people and augurs badly for such people having the power over our money. I fought for ‘the man on the shop floor’ when I gave Lord Hailsham the concept of the conscience clause against the Foot Bill (Trades Unions and Labour Relations Amendment Bill). Lord Hailsham was unable to get that clause through and it had to wait until Mrs. Thatcher and yet this is central to our spiritual existence as a Christian nation. These politicians could see no relevance in the freedom of the spirit of man.
We, the ordinary people of Britain, the freemen, ask for you to take the steps needed to free our constitutional laws and customs giving us protection against the hideous and treasonous servitude under which we are presently held and free our sovereign from the Fabian thrall or, failing that, under chapter 61 of Magna Carta, replace her with someone able to honour their Coronation Oath. The present situation is worse than that under King John.
(signed) Elizabeth Beckett
Lady of 83, student of the British Constitution – stands up against our Treasonous Government
Will We the People support her? Or, as it has become
our custom, will we turn our heads and look the other way?
By David Heatherington
The Westminster News
As one flagrant breach of the Constitution is piled onto another, Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett is one of those who is prepared to stand up and fight.
When she discovered that her council tax bill was being used as a vehicle to extract money from her for a European Union inspired regional assembly, she went on the offensive.
She launched four legal cases against the government citing erosion of the Constitution, Breach of Contract, Breach of Trust and for Treason and Legal Fraud. Each time her paperwork was sent back marked “No such case known in Law”.
Now she is refusing to pay the local tax on her Old Vicarage house in Alston, Cumbria, and has been the subject of considerable harassment by bailiffs.
Mrs. Beckett, whose father was Ronald Brymer Beckett, a High Court Judge, has researched the British Constitution and states that there are three general principles governing the system of raising money for public purposes by compelling the payment by individuals of sums of money called taxes.
1) Subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue that they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. In the observation or neglect of this maximum consists what is called equality or inequality taxation.
2) The tax that each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time, manner and quality of the payment ought to be certain and not arbitrary, clear to the contributor and to every other person.
3) Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the State.
Mrs Elizabeth Beckett handing over a letter to a Police Sergent in Penrith, Cumbria, asking the Chief Constable to protect her rights under the Constitution.
Mrs, Beckett has refused to pay her council tax to Eden District Council since discovering that some of the council tax money is then illegally siphoned-off for use by the European Union to create a new regional authority under its control.
Mrs Beckett believes her rights under the British Constitution are being flouted because the local authority is attempting to coerce her into payment of the rates before she has had the opportunity to appeal the matter to a higher court.
She says she has received numerous letters from council officers and visits from bailiffs to her old vicarage home in Alston, Cumbria, where she has been threatened with forcible confiscation of her property and with bankruptcy
Mrs. Beckett, who was a District Officer’s wife in India, believes that adding onto local taxes the cost of illegal immigrants or local assemblies that are a link to the European Union, itself a body not allowed under our Constitution, is illegal. Money raised for local councils should be described as a service charge, not a Tax.
Mrs. Beckett says the adding to our Service Charges of other items stems from the 1911 Parliament Act when the Marxists, Socialists, Fabians and Sinn Fein and the Liberal Government under Asquith took the power of Taxation from the King and the scrutiny of the Lords, so that the party that gets into power can tax in any way they like without any supervision or control.
“That Act is to this day illegal, but the words used to destroy the Lords were the same words used to get rid of the Queen’s authority,” she said.
“Our Constitution is clear:
We the people hold the power (we are a democracy but we are also a Constitutional Monarchy) but for the power of Government and giving assent to Bills, we give the power known as the Royal Prerogative, to the Queen to govern. She governs in our name and according to the laws that we brought in to prevent her or the people in Parliament, from taking over power.
Unfortunately this has been done both in the 1911 Parliament Act and in the Reform of the Constitution Act of 2005 when Blair and Lord Falconer took over the power we had given to the Queen for her lifetime. They then gave to Parliament the right to decide on whether or not to go to war instead of putting the power under our laws that say we cannot go to war unless someone is attacking us.”
Last week Mrs. Becket was told by a senior civil servant that Acts of Parliament now go straight into Law. They no longer require Royal Assent because the Queen’s agreement is automatic, due to Queen Anne being the last Monarch to refuse to accept a Bill passed by both Houses.“This is not in fact true as both George III, Queen Victoria and Edward VII all sent Bills back. This is a very serious matter as it means that all Bills that have not had assent are in fact invalid. “What this government has done is take from the people their inherent power under the Constitutional Law. This is the birthright of the British people and their sovereignty under the Act of Settlement.”The fact is that the British people are now fighting a ‘war from within.’
The strategy of our enemies is:
- To abolish the Monarchy and all ordered government.
- To abolish private property.
- To abolish patriotism and nationalism.
- To abolish the family unit.
- To abolish organised religion.
COVERAGE IN BRITAIN WAS ZILCH!
THE STENCH OF COMMUNISM!!