Magna Carta/ FOTL

[Royalman]

Here is a Barrister’s view:

[HRuffalo]

It was the first major document in the English legal system (which is also what legal systems in pretty much the entire English-speaking world is based on) that put limits on the power of the state (in this case, King John). Notably, it provided for the basis of what we now view as due processes, such as trial by jury. Now, the Magna Carta only extended those rights to the nobility, not the common man. But it was the first real step towards the justice system as we know it today.

Before the Magna Carta, the king could do anything he wanted. After, he could do almost anything he wanted.

[longdog]

Before the Magna Carta, the king could do anything he wanted. After, he could do almost anything he wanted.

Yeah... Sort of maybe but not quite.

Kings before and after Magna Carta could do exactly what they wanted as long as there was nobody with a bigger army than them. In practical terms their power was not unconstrained before and Magna Carta did little or nothing to constrain many of them afterwards.

Certainly historically important as the earliest surviving "legal" constraint on power but in terms of actual effect... Not so much.

[notorial dissent]

Before the Magna Carta, the king could do anything he wanted. After, he could do almost anything he wanted.

Yeah... Sort of maybe but not quite.

Kings before and after Magna Carta could do exactly what they wanted as long as there was nobody with a bigger army than them. In practical terms their power was not unconstrained before and Magna Carta did little or nothing to constrain many of them afterwards.

Certainly historically important as the earliest surviving "legal" constraint on power but in terms of actual effect... Not so much.

It did start things on that slippery slope towards less autocratic and more legalistic and representative gov't, slowly but inevitably.

[exiledscouser]

It’s ironic that “evil” King John, as he signed himself into history was doing so at the point of a blade and so my wild guess is that he probably “did not consent”. Isn’t the basic tenet of freemanism that if you are forced to do something then whatever you sign up to is fake/fraudulent/treasonous “ab initio”?

The likes of Dismally departed Dave and the horrid Phoenix woman place their whole belief system on this logical fallacy, claiming that Art 61 is immutable or some such. I’d sign up to anything, even a Peloton contract if it meant avoiding a stiletto up the jaxie.

Speaking of which i saw this on the internet the other day as regards Peloton.

I do wish the PLD crazies could introduce some consistency, that they’d make their minds up on this.

[longdog]

Well Departed Dave would always use the "under duress of circumstances" argument whenever it was expedient. Like the way he was quite happy to take state benefits under the "duress of circumstance" that he would either be penniless or have to get a job if he didn't.

As with everything with these loons it's whatever suits your purposes best at any particular point in time that is legally lawful and lawfully legal. It's the fact they are so pitifully transparent when it comes to their hypocrisy that makes them so funny.

I suppose if you follow this idiocy to its illogical conclusion the barons were entitled to use duress to force John to sign because of the duress of circumstances that he wouldn't have signed if they hadn't. So that makes it binding again... Or not as the case may or may not be... Or something.

The fact that their campaign for freedom ultimately depends on being ruled by unelected kings and barons, who have such a wonderfully benevolent history, is a whole other issue. I have never got an answer out of any of them when I have asked them how the plebs would hold these hereditary rulers to account. Not even a bad answer.

[grixit]

It’s ironic that “evil” King John, as he signed himself into history was doing so at the point of a blade and so my wild guess is that he probably “did not consent”. Isn’t the basic tenet of freemanism that if you are forced to do something then whatever you sign up to is fake/fraudulent/treasonous “ab initio”?

Yup. If you look at the original Magna Carta, you'll see that at the bottom it's signed

John-Boy:Plantagenet, under duress, UCC-1.

[AndyPandy]

£42k fine for breaking Covid rules, stand under the Magna Carta didn’t do them much good !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-57750368

[longdog]

£42k fine for breaking Covid rules, stand under the Magna Carta didn’t do them much good !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-57750368

I see they were so sure of their Chewbacca Magna Carta defence they didn't even bother to turn up to court.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Not sure how this one slipped under the radar!

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH v CAUL GRANT/KAYLEE/PERSONS UNKNOWN

Normal squatting on public land I thought, until I got to this:

Someone gave [the park manager] a document which asserted the right of the occupants to seize the land as a partial remedy for the ongoing violation of the law committed by the judiciary and other branches of the state. Reference was made to "Clause 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and Article 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998". The document asserted that, as members of the Campaign for Truth and Justice, the occupants were immune from any form of law enforcement. The document concluded with these words:

"Let it be known that any attempt to interfere with any member, their family or their property will be in direct contravention of the Rule of Law and will be met with any resistance deemed necessary by ourselves.

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

You have been WARNED."

The original case was on 29 June. That resulted in an order for witness evidence from the Defendants by 19 July and reply evidence from the Claimant by 26 July 2021, with a final hearing on 27 August.

And with this, as we have seen so often, victory was declared!

SOME GREAT NEWS AND FINALLY A VICTORY FOR LOVEDOWN. THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN US UNTIL 27TH AUGUST TO COME UP WITH A CONVINCING ARGUMENT AS TO WHY WE SHOULD STAY AND MORE DETAIL ON EXACTLY WHY WE ARE HERE. THIS IS HUGE. JUST IMAGINE WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE WITHIN THAT TIME. NOW WE NEED THE TEACHERS, DOCTORS AND LAWYERS ETC TO COME AND JOIN US. WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY AND WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER.

LOVEDOWN NOT LOCKDOWN

This led to Lambeth requesting an earlier hearing. But what's a collection of FotLers and covid deniers, without a pagga?

Later [ont the 7th July], Mr Ross attended and noted that the group appeared to have split into two because of a disagreement.

So, how did the hearing go? The council submitted:

Given that neither Magna Carta nor Article 7 ECHR was relevant, the only potential reason for refusing to grant possession would be to avoid a disproportionate interference with the rights of the occupiers under Articles 10 and/or 11 ECHR.

So to the protestors. Are they FotLers or Covidiots? It seems a bit of both:

Namaste said at first that the occupiers were not engaged in a protest, but in an act of lawful rebellion. Later, however, Namaste said that "we do act out some protests" against what is being done by the government and to demand the repeal of the Coronavirus Act, which enables the country to be in a state of emergency. The group took objection to the requirement to wear masks and to the promotion of coronavirus vaccines, which he said were in fact experimental gene therapy drugs

.

Minister Emerven did not recognise the Court's authority or jurisdiction and at one point told me that he was placing me under arrest pursuant to the "universal law". He was accompanied by others who sat in the public gallery. All initially remained standing as an act of defiance to the court, but later sat when I made clear that they would otherwise be removed. Minister Emerven did not make any substantive submissions.

And then we have a touch of the Neelus from Mr Grant:

[Caul Grant] said that he had suffered a series of wrongs at the hands of various emanations of the State and legal professionals. These began with the death of his baby at the age of 15 months on 4 September 1994. There had been litigation for medical negligence arising out of that. Mr Grant was dissatisfied with the way the litigation was handled. He had spray painted the offices of the lawyers involved. There was a series of legal proceedings, some brought against him and others brought by him. He was aggrieved by the outcome of these and considered the judiciary as an institution to be corrupt.

[He] had filed a claim against the Ministry of Justice and the Secretary of State for the Home Department seeking compensation of £150 million for these wrongs. Enquiries with the court office revealed that, on 2 December 2020, it was struck out by Master Dagnall as totally without merit.

[He] relied on Article 7 ECHR, which he said was inspired by the principles underlying Article 61 of Magna Carta. The land being occupied had been seized as a partial remedy for the wrongs he claimed to have suffered. If he were compensated for those wrongs, he would be prepared to return the land.

So what were the judge's observations?

Clause 61 of Magna Carta conferred certain rights and powers on the barons who forced King John to issue Magna Carta in 1215. It was removed when the Charter was reissued in 1216 and has never been part of English statute law. It is not in force and does not confer any rights on the occupiers at all.

So how did it go?

For these reasons, the Council is in my judgment entitled to an order for possession. Although none of the occupiers invited me to make any order other than one granting full possession forthwith, I have nonetheless considered of my own motion whether any lesser order would suffice, in accordance with the principles in Samede at [51]-[55].

I considered whether I should make an order permitting the occupation to continue until 19 July on the basis that the occupiers might perceive its continuation to be unnecessary after that date. But, even if the planned relaxation of restrictions on 19 July goes ahead as announced, there can be no certainty that any of the occupiers would ultimately take the view that it was unnecessary to continue the occupation after that date. On the basis of the submissions made to me, it seems very unlikely that all of them would.

Similarly, because the occupiers have differing aims and approaches and are a constantly shifting group, it would not be practically possible for undertakings to be given which bound them all. In any event, an order granting anything less than full possession would give rise to very substantial enforcement difficulties, with concomitant public costs.

This means that, in my judgment, there is no realistic alternative to the order sought by the Council.

So, once again by opening their big mouths on social media they have turned a scenario that could have seen them stay all summer, into an instant possession order. !!!SUCCESS!1!

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/1962.html

[John Uskglass]

Pretty certain this is the same Caul Grant - successful appeal against being sent down for contempt in a proceedings of crime matter following conviction for drug smuggling. It won't let me cut'n'paste.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 7f57ea5187

[Hercule Parrot]

Pretty certain this is the same Caul Grant

Yes, same guy. BAILI has that judgement - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/643.html

Mr Grant has quite a history, and you have to wonder if he's ever met up with Nutty Nelly. They were made for each other. It seems his young son was rushed to hospital in 1994, and died. It is said by medical reports that he might've been saved with swifter hydration and surgery. http://www.ctj.org.uk/documents/Mrs-Grant/index.htm

Mrs Grant was at the hospital, but Mr Grant was AWOL. He alleges that he was given confusing information and didn't arrive in time. This tragedy led to legal proceedings against the Hospital, but also a bitter parental divorce. Mr Grant then embarked on a campaign to prove it wasn't his fault that he didn't attend, and it all got ugly. By 1998 Mr Grant was suing everyone in sight, including his own psychiatrist, alleging a conspiracy and demanding £104M damages http://www.ctj.org.uk/documents/High-Co ... /index.htm

Diane Abbott urged him to let it go (http://www.ctj.org.uk/documents/Diane-Abbot/Page-1.jpg) without success, and by 2003, mother's lawyers had a permanent injunction against Mr Grant, but that didn't seem to deter him either
http://www.ctj.org.uk/documents/Bindman ... /index.htm

Things went downhill after that, when Mr Grant decided to import 45kg of Satan's Spinach, and got caught. He presented his own defence on erm... interesting lines, involving a justification argument based on corruption in the legal system, and an apparent claim that he got caught on purpose because it was the only way to raise his grievances in court. The judge wasn't convinced, and neither were the jury http://www.ctj.org.uk/documents/Crown-C ... /index.htm

Mr Grant's appeal fared little better (http://www.ctj.org.uk/documents/Court-O ... /index.htm) and he entered prison in 2004 with a small campaign trying to present him as a victim of state cover-up (

Upon release in 2009 the disputes turned to the confiscation order, which Mr Grant was still flouting. Eg para of the first linked judgement "the judge expressed himself entirely satisfied that Mr Grant had wholly failed to comply with the requirements of the restraint order, either by 2nd July 2010 or at all. Indeed, Mr. Grant did not seek to pretend that he had done so. Instead, he simply asserted a right not to comply with them, while at the same time making it clear that he had no intention of doing so." After hearing his sad tale, CPS withdrew the contempt committal but he's still on the hook for £119k (a lot of money, especially in 2010, and probably still outstanding).

Somewhere along the way Mr Grant has become an expert legal advocate, trading under the brand of Campaign for Truth & Justice, and offering a wide range of legal services (presumably at very reasonable prices) http://www.ctj.org.uk/index.htm He occasionally tries to get a case going, eg but there's little more to suggest any success.

This is just a lazy skin of Google, there's probably much more.

[exiledscouser]

Excellent write up, enjoyed the read - thank you.

[SpearGrass]

I note that "MInister Emerven" was also a party, threatening to arrest the judge, which he seems to have taken in good part. Presumably this is an alternative spelling for Minister Emoven who features on this site on the We Buy Any Debt page. I'm told that this Minister of many faces is quite busy in courts in Wales, though to little effect.

[Hercule Parrot]

I note that "MInister Emerven" was also a party, threatening to arrest the judge, which he seems to have taken in good part. Presumably this is an alternative spelling for Minister Emoven who features on this site on the We Buy Any Debt page. I'm told that this Minister of many faces is quite busy in courts in Wales, though to little effect.

My impression is that 'Minister Emoven' is a fictional device, the supposed replacement debtor in their serially ineffective fantasy system. A sort of "Captain Swing" for stupid, dishonest people.

"Step 6: CONTACT THE UTILITIES AND NOTIFY THEM THAT "MINISTER EMOVEN" IS NOW THE LIABILITY HOLDER AND OT (sic) UPDATE THEIR RECORDS" (https://www.universallawcommunitytrust.com/about)

As if any creditor would accept "I don't owe you that money any more, you'll have to recover it from this other guy." It's so ridiculous that only very stupid or dishonest people would ever believe it.

[longdog]

It's at a "Some big boys did it and ran away" level of stupidity isn't it?

[Gregg]

It was the first major document in the English legal system (which is also what legal systems in pretty much the entire English-speaking world is based on) that put limits on the power of the state (in this case, King John). Notably, it provided for the basis of what we now view as due processes, such as trial by jury. Now, the Magna Carta only extended those rights to the nobility, not the common man. But it was the first real step towards the justice system as we know it today.

Before the Magna Carta, the king could do anything he wanted. After, he could do almost anything he wanted.

Progress! It also marked the beginning of the Illuminati's rise to power. John was the first King to be our puppet.

[Gregg]

Before the Magna Carta, the king could do anything he wanted. After, he could do almost anything he wanted.

Yeah... Sort of maybe but not quite.

Kings before and after Magna Carta could do exactly what they wanted as long as there was nobody with a bigger army than them. In practical terms their power was not unconstrained before and Magna Carta did little or nothing to constrain many of them afterwards.

Certainly historically important as the earliest surviving "legal" constraint on power but in terms of actual effect... Not so much.

Not just a bigger Army, actually. Talk to Henry II about Stalin's question about the Pope's tanks.

[Gregg]

Well Departed Dave would always use the "under duress of circumstances" argument whenever it was expedient. Like the way he was quite happy to take state benefits under the "duress of circumstance" that he would either be penniless or have to get a job if he didn't.

As with everything with these loons it's whatever suits your purposes best at any particular point in time that is legally lawful and lawfully legal. It's the fact they are so pitifully transparent when it comes to their hypocrisy that makes them so funny.

I suppose if you follow this idiocy to its illogical conclusion the barons were entitled to use duress to force John to sign because of the duress of circumstances that he wouldn't have signed if they hadn't. So that makes it binding again... Or not as the case may or may not be... Or something.

The fact that their campaign for freedom ultimately depends on being ruled by unelected kings and barons, who have such a wonderfully benevolent history, is a whole other issue. I have never got an answer out of any of them when I have asked them how the plebs would hold these hereditary rulers to account. Not even a bad answer.

I think that it did kind of work out that way. John was 'under duress" because the Barons had a sword to his chest when he signed it. IIRC the pope initially annulled Magna Carta and it was reaffirmed only after Henry III ascended and he was just nine years old so he didn't have much choice either.

[ArthurWankspittle]

IIRC the pope initially annulled Magna Carta and it was reaffirmed only after Henry III ascended and he was just nine years old so he didn't have much choice either.

IIRC The pope had a deal with King John that he (the pope) had to OK stuff. Therefore, as he never OKed the Magna Carta, it was invalid from the get go.