John has sent an update and some links for us to look at. There is much more to come very soon, but the video I link to features John at a recent talk. Have a listen as he explains a couple of things here.
In the video, John refers to a couple of resources, they are here:
"6. The case brings us face to face with the kind of issue that led to Lord Atkin’s famously powerful protest in Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, 244 against a construction of a Defence Regulation which had the effect of giving an absolute and uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister. In The Case of Liversidge v Anderson : The Rule of Law Amid the Clash of Arms (2009) 43 The International Lawyer 33, 38 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, having traced the history of that judgment, said that –“we are entitled to be proud that even in that extreme national emergency there was one voice – eloquent and courageous – which asserted older, nobler, more enduring values: the right of the individual against the state; the duty to govern in accordance with law; the role of the courts as guarantor of legality and individual right; the priceless gift, subject only to constraints by law established, of individual freedom.”
And:
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, complained that judges were allowing the European Convention on Human Rights in Strasbourg to take precedence in their decision-making.
He said it was up to judges to “save” English common law - which dates back to the 12th century - by relying on it for precedents in their cases, rather than always looking to Strasbourg for guidance.
John also sent me various attachments but asked that I do not publish them at this time because they would hurt his impending action. Naturally I will respect his wishes. The full story will emerge shortly and we will update you again as events unfold.
Needless to say, it will be gripping stuff.
There are very few people with the depth of knowledge that John has in this subject and it is reassuring to know that he is using his ancient rights to seek redress in a world where the idiots in charge assume we have forgotten our history, forgotten that rights made of solid gold are far more valuable than benefits made of poor quality plastic, and that common law is supreme.
John is making a video that will explain everything. It will also contain documentation that will be used in an ongoing court case. There is no finer test of a law, whether it has just been enacted, or one that was fully supported by a monarch eight hundred years ago, than arguing it in a court-room. The king may be long dead, but his words are just as viable today as they were in the Middle Ages, and the law remains at our disposal. The nay-sayers, God bless their negative socks, trot out that old phrase, "Magna Carta was a statute, and parliaments cannot bind their successors". Which is lovely, sounds officious, and fools some people. Not me. Magna Carta was enacted fifty years before our first paliament in 1265. Which neatly destroys their argument.
The video will be ready in a few days and will appear on Johns blog.
Stay tuned.
It's all about to get a lot more exciting.
CR.
5 comments:
Keep us posted
i pointed this video out to you on 14 aug,2012 explained,better late than never.i deliver the uk collum newspaper in my area along with other downloaded information even some of your articles captain.if anybody wants to do the same,just phone uk collum.
trippy
Trippy,
And I watched it then too.
The reason I didn't post it was because we had seen a huge chunk of it before in Schaeffers video.
It is a good time to post the vid now because it ties in with John's court action.
CR.
Thanks for the link CR.
People such as myself know that there is something wrong, we just don't know enough to form our arguments.
John Hurst is a man of honour and courage.
Post a Comment