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.


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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…