Skip to main content

FMOTL - Magna Carta 1215 and constitutional theories

It remains that some people (sometimes known as Freeman of the Land - aka FMOTL) continue arguing a case based upon a strange interpretation of the UK constitution.  This ends up with a strange distinction between common law and statute law and an attempt to argue really quite unorthodox things.

I am not in itself opposed to things which are unorthodox, but if people do not follow the procedures defined in the UK constitution they should not expect anything to come of this.  I know of a case where someone's mental capacity was removed for relying on this.  I believe that decision to be wrong, but whatever it may be it does not help.

Every so often people try to rely on these theories.  Can I emphasise:

I have never heard of anyone succeeding in the UK on the basis of FMOTL legal theory.  I am quite happy to look in the comments at something.

The most important point to understand is that the UK constitution is based upon a popular revolution from 1688. The constitutional settlement that was achieved at that point and accepted at that point is the constitutional settlement mutatis mutandis that applies today.  That settlement included Magna Carta 1297 not Magna Carta 1215.

Magna Carta 1215 did not even last for a year even though it was supposed to last for ever.   It is a "dead parrot" in a legal sense.

Hence the foundations of the legal theory known as FMOTL are flawed and any edifice built on them has to fail.

You can find Magna Carta 1297 on the legislation website if you wish.



Comments

Jim Moore said…
Hi John, could I just ask for the edification of those who can't quite get their heads around the technical differences between the two Magna Cartas (1215 and 1297 specifically, none of the others are in issue right this minute), could you explain just what makes the FMOTL logic so flawed? As I understand it, and not being or having come from a position where I've found myself claiming Constitutional Privilege on any forum (hence I stand to be corrected by an expert), the simple fact is that the FMOTL claim of a privilege normally reserved for the Barony (Lawful Rebellion) did not exist in the 1215 document. Apart from that, LR is not a claim of physical right (eg to picket the Gates of Buckingham Palace or whatever) but a legal one - one in which if the King misbehaved, the Barony could hold a Grand Jury to decide whether the King had a case to answer in "his" own Court, in front of a petit jury of his Subjects. The LR clause (and they were never numbered) guaranteed this legal authority such that the Barony could not then be held for treason.
John Hemming said…
The constitution is as defined in 1688 combined with modifications since then. That is where people need to start.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…