This does not sound like the objective trial nor does Hus sound like a heretic.
"I've found a place on Goggle books where you can review at least some of the pages on The Trial of Jan Hus. There is nothing in this section that would support your claim that Hus was a heretic."
I feel sorry for you. I really do. It isn't my claim. Thomas Fudge - and many other historians - attest to the fact that Huss was a heretic. It seems that you are personally upset about this. You're going to have to get used to reality. There's nothing you, I, or anyone else can do about it.
As a Protestant you can't even believe in orthodox Christianity so what do you care if Huss was a heretic? There was a French scholar who 300 years ago showed that Huss was very orthodox on some things - such as veneration of the saints - so wouldn't you AS A PROTESTANT consider him a heretic for that? Do you venerate the saints?
No matter how you look at it Huss is a heretic to everyone for something. Don't you guys ever think this stuff through? If you're a Presbyterian, you MUST believe Luther is a heretic because he believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - which no Presbyterian would ever believe in. If you're a Lutheran, you MUST believe Calvin and Knox were heretics because they denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And on it goes. Do you not realize this? Seriously, has that never occurred to you before?
"On the contary, the book states that Hus was refused the opportunity to debate his points, his supporters were threaten, Hus was denied justice for wanting his accusers punished for bringing false accusations against him, and Hus claimed the legal case against him was "a sack of lies", etc. The verdict which was handed down without papal input was illegal. This does not sound like the objective trial nor does Hus sound like a heretic."
Sorry, you're wrong - he was a heretic. There's no doubt that Huss' trial was problematic to say the least. No trial should have been held at the council at all most likely. But - again - procedure was followed. This has been known for years. This was already shown by the Czech scholar Jiří Kejř 15 years ago in his book Husův proces. I already mentioned this fact.
You seem to be unduly upset about Thomas Fudge's book. I suggest you either buy and refute it (which isn't possible anyway) or simply read it and come to grips with reality. If it bothers you as much as it seems to, then maybe it should come before those 40 other books on your shelf that you mentioned.
"The Trial" was actually an ecumenical council gathering explicitly to resolve the theological disagreements and misunderstandings between Rome and the East and to heal the Great Western Schism. In the end, the reigning Pope agreed to step down for the cause of unity, Rome recognized the validity of Eastern praxis and affirmed the efficacy of Eastern sacraments, and the East recognized the orthodoxy of Western theology.
Rather than declare victory and go home triumphantly, Hus instead turned to slander. He was deemed a heretic, stripped of his Church protection, and handed to State authorities to face charges of the SECULAR crime of sedition.
Hus claimed the Church's legal case against him was a "sack of lies." Do you asssert, then, that Hus affirmed every one of the 30 Catholic doctrines he was accused of denying? If this is true, then he is no Protestant at all. More likely, he "felt" he was innocent of the crime of sedition.
Of the 30 charges of heresy, only the final one supported the charge of sedition, which was what cost him his life. But the Church only needed one of the 30 heresy charges to stick to hand him over to the State.
Knowing that the 30th charge would mean his neck, its regrettable that the Church failed to show mercy, and instead forced the issue to the State. The Catholic Church has chosen to emphasize this issue in issuing its apologies. Even back then, it charged him with NONE of the heresies he had stated in support of Eastern Christianity, even though he assented to none of the theological positions that the Churches had arrived at in reconciliation.
But you want it both ways: Either Hus was innocent, and therefore a faithful Catholic who was wrongly accused of sedition, and in no way represented a Protestant notion of "the True Church" in pre-Reformation times or he was, in fact, guilty of heresy, and the Church was legitimate (although peraps imprudent) in allowing him to face charges by the State.