The comedy court of Common Law

[jackroe]

Which statute repeals the 1215 Charter or section 61 thereof?

None of it needs to be repealed as it was never pealed in the first place. It predates the establishment of parliament in 1295 and isn't common law so it's not considered to have ever been a part of English law.

It has the same legal status in 2020 as the laws of the Roman occupation. None.

Magna Carta is taken by Coke to be, broadly a statement of principles of the common law, e.g. a clause in 1215 not in any others.

nos non faciemus justitiarios constabularious vicecomites vel ballivos nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare
we will not make justices, constables, sheriffs or ministers except of such who know the manner of the kingdom and mean to observe it well.

A fun factoid is that legem regni is used once in the vulgate bible, Samuel told the people legem regni, it translates the hebrew mishpat hammelukah, for what that is worth. But whatever legem regni means, it more or less means that if a judge who does not know or mean to well observe "legem regni" is appointed, it's a bad appointment.

Coke's Commentary on Magna Carta in the institutes is pretty interesting, in the second volume of his institutes. The idea that there are no laws prior to those made in parliament is a strange one, feudal tenures existed before parliament. If it is not English law, what is it? It's certainly not like the law of the Roman Occupation, there's a continuum from those old roman laws to the anglo saxon laws (very fun reading) to the stuff made after the Norman Conquest, and then after parliament was introduced.

What is your view of what is common law? AFAIK the oldest reported cases are the year books from Edw. I. The oldest authority is, afaik, Glanville, which was written in the reign of Henry II:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus ... gni_Anglie


https://books.google.ca/books?id=pxNWW1Vr4nsC&pg=PA1

This was written well before Magna Carta, it beings "pleas are either civil or criminal," which seems to be a common distinction within our law courts to this very day..

[AnOwlCalledSage]

[noblepa]

It has the same legal status in 2020 as the laws of the Roman occupation. None.

Not quite. Both are interesting historical items.

Furthermore, the MC is, I believe, the first time that the powers of a monarch have been limited. That is an extremely important historical event, even though it doesn't mean what the FOTL'ers think it does.

No longer were monarchs considered to have unlimited power. There were now legal limits and remedies applied to their actions. OTOH, the protections provided in the MC did not extend to the peasantry. Only the barons and nobility had any recourse over the actions of the monarch. Commoners need not apply.

By extension, even democratic governments, at least in the developed, western world, are limited as well. Thomas Jefferson, in the US Declaration of Independence, said, "The just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed". While this is a uniquely American document, I think that the sentiment is universal among those who believe in democracy. No longer do we blindly accept the "divine right of kings".

[longdog]

The idea that there are no laws prior to those made in parliament is a strange one, feudal tenures existed before parliament.

That's not what I am saying. The English system of law (and as a result the UK in the most part) consists of common law and statute. Statute law is that which has been passed by parliament which has existed since 1295.

Magna Carta 1215 is not and never was a part of common law and predates parliament by 80 years. It is therefore considered to have never been a part of English law.

Simple as.

[dannyno]

Hence in R. (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor ([2017] UKSC 51), you get this:

74. In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The central idea is expressed in Ch.40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 ( Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam ), which remains on the statute book in the closing words of Ch.29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297:
“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

In other words, 1215 doesn't remain on the statute book in its own right. However, there are plenty of judgements and commentary to be found which cite 1215 as part of the tradition of English law, which of course is obvious.

In Halsbury's Laws of England, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Volume 20 (2014)), s. 182 is titled, "Limitation by Magna Carta", but the footnote is to Magna Carta of Edward I (1297) c 29, not 1215.

In the same volume, s.172 on "statutory limitations on the prerogative" includes this helpful footnote:

The four great statutes or charters are (1) Magna Carta of Edward I (1297) (see below); (2) the Petition of Right (1627) (see below); (3) the Bill of Rights, confirmed by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689; and (4) the Act of Settlement. As to the history and citation of the Bill of Rights, and as to the citation of the Act of Settlement, see para 43 note 3.

Magna Carta was first assented to by King John in 1215. It was confirmed, and sometimes extended but more frequently curtailed, more than 30 times between the reigns of Henry III and Henry IV. The confirmation and reissue of 1297, known as the Magna Carta of Edward I (1297) is still in force as to cc 1, 9, 29, and to that extent still binds the Crown. The same applies to various of the confirming charters, namely the statute 25 Edw 1 (Confirmation of the Charters) (1297), cc 1 (in part), 6; the statute 25 Edw 3 stat 5 (Executors) (1351–2), c 5; the statute 28 Edw 3 (1354), c 3; the statute 7 Hen 4 (Liberties, Charters and Statutes Confirmed) (1405–06), c 1; the statute 4 Hen 5 stat 2 (Confirmation of Charters and Statutes) (1415–16); and the statute 2 Hen 6 (Confirmation of Liberties) (1423), c 1. Constitutionally the most important of these charters is now the Magna Carta of Edward I (1297) (25 Edw 1).

The Petition of Right (1627) was drawn up by the Commons in 1627, and recited in particular the Magna Carta of Edward I (1297) and the statute 25 Edw I (Statute Concerning Tallage) (1297) (25 Edw I), of which c 1 is still in force. To the petition itself Charles I appended the answer 'Soit droit fait come est desire' (let right be done as is desired).

As Halsbury's states in its "Definition and scope of constitutional law":

Although there is no written constitution, there are identifiable Acts of Parliament of major constitutional significance. Some of these are of great historic importance, such as Magna Carta 1215 establishing the idea of limited government, which became the first parliamentary statute in 1297...

So it's clear, 1215 was of historical importance, but only 1297 is a valid law (well, those three bits).

[jackroe]

Hence in R. (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor ([2017] UKSC 51), you get this:

74. In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The central idea is expressed in Ch.40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 ( Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam ), which remains on the statute book in the closing words of Ch.29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297:
“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

In other words, 1215 doesn't remain on the statute book in its own right. However, there are plenty of judgements and commentary to be found which cite 1215 as part of the tradition of English law, which of course is obvious.

This simply doesn't make sense. The King made a charter and used words of inheritance:

"TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs"

This is the same as if he had said "To N. we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, the dale of X, to have and to keep for him and his heirs, of us and our heirs."

Presuming that N had an heir, and he had an heir...up until this present day, there is no reason to think that the grant would not have remained good. There are several competing reasons that are offered, almost as though it's a shotgun approach: "the pope annulled it!" "it was extracted at swordpoint!" "it's not on the statute roll!"

Edward Coke, in Prince's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 1, says that the Charter is clearly a statute, because it alters the common law:

"(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place."

Prior to this, the judges followed the King, and this is a modification of the common law in some sense, and since that time the Common Pleas were held in Westminster Hall.

Just because another statute with similar (but not identical) wording was made by Henry 3 does not repeal the prior statute, and some of the clauses are taken to be universal legal norms, e.g. to none will we deny justice or right---if parliament repealed that, I take it judges could arbitrarily deny justice or right? I mean, no statute says that they can't, other than Magna Carta, does it?

Doesn't it make more sense that no King would want to put in writing a mechanism whereby his barons could assail him and seize castles, etc. with the help of the community, and that is why there were subsequent editions without those clauses, not that those clauses are invalid, but that they were only put into the Magna Carta of 1215 because the barons wanted them, and the balance of power shifted with later editions?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Should be moved to Word Salad. Nowt to do with the discussion of the clown court. Now he's just shitting all over the topics rather than the chess board.

[notorial dissent]

Should it be shredded??

[longdog]

Edward Coke, in Prince's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 1, says that the Charter is clearly a statute, because it alters the common law:

"(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place."

Edward Coke was a crank and was effectively sacked after The Bonham Case fiasco.

He's also been dead for nearly 400 years.

[JimUk1]

Magna Carta was annulled by the Pope.

Now show your working.

I don't believe he had jurisdiction!

So how do Barons from Scotland have any jurisdiction in England? MC was signed before the treaty known as the act of union.

And a Monarch who is actually from the Kingdom of Hanover, in West Germany, how does she have any jurisdiction? Her and her ancestors have been granting royal assent for oh, 200 or more years now?

Interestingly, those red coated guards you see outside Bucky Palace, they were never really British.....

[SpearGrass]

As for the understanding of the Barons of what they were doing, that's been made clear by the delightfully polite (and Scottish) Lord Craigmyle, the Baron of choice for PLD. He was interviewed on YouTube, and by the BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b09qhsc4, and readily admits "I didn't know what I was doing really". He further explains on YouTube that he can't do anything with the Art 61 oaths which land on the mat at his late father's house in the Hebrides. And he's far too polite to refer to starting fires, hamster cages, etc.

Now, I believe it's always best to try to explain to someone who's at the mouth of the fotler rabbit hole, because going down it seldom ends well for them, but some can take advice and some can't. The Owl's advice is clearly right in this case, and it's time to take my bag of the pigeon food away.

[Hercule Parrot]

This simply doesn't make sense. The King made a charter and used words of inheritance:

"TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs"

Yeah, and then we established a parliamentary government with sovereign authority. That modern state is not bound by promises made by long-dead kings to their long-dead cronies. We keep and honour what we choose to, and we repudiate that which is unwanted. Ancient pre-parliamentary history has no legal effect unless, until and as far as we decide it should.

Imagine that an archeologist discovered a parchment upon which King Edmund of East Anglia had promised the town of Norwich to my ancestors, in return for some favour or perhaps just in a game of skittles. Would you seriously argue that I now own Norwich?

Or if King Frithuwald of Bernicia had ordered that your bloodline was cursed forever because one of your ancestors cheated him, would you be content for modern government officials to come round and execute your family?

This is realpolitik, Jack. We don't recognise Magna Carta except where it suits us to do so. We are the people, we are sovereign, we are the government, we are the law.

[longdog]

This is realpolitik, Jack. We don't recognise Magna Carta except where it suits us to do so. We are the people, we are sovereign, we are the government, we are the law.

This is the main thing I don't get about the Maggie Carthorse "it can never be changed" nutters. In which sane universe is any democratic society going to limit the legislative powers of their government with some immutable 800 year old treaty between squabbling foreign invaders?

I don't know which is the most bat-shit insane. Thinking it's true or thinking it should be true.

[aesmith]

CLC now jumping on the bandwagon, but claim to be raising a civil case against Boris Johnson for a cool hundred million. That looks like a real claim form but it's not going anywhere firstly because it's complete nonsense but also because he's not paid the fee.

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/the-peop ... l6zSxeIzPI

[John Uskglass]

Brief details of claim

The Defenmdant is responsibble for causing harm, loss and injury to the people and is also using fraudulant contracts bind them into slavery.

To assist his position, the Defendant has used the following:
An abuse of position
Theft of Property
Kidnapping
Criminal Coercion
Uttering
The Failure to accept the positions of a living man
Refusal to Comply with common law
Tyranny
Treason

My top legal team inform me that we can issue a private prosecution for crimes against both grammar and spelling. And for 'uttering'.

You kind of have to admire the chutzpah of their reasons for not paying the fee:

In relation to your requirement for court fees, we the people confirm that we have already paid for the set up of the court (a registered company)and we do not have to comply with statutory rules. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnsonis committing crimes against thepeople while using the state to assist, the people are not required to pay for the privilegeof suffering.To insist on a fee from living men and living women would confirm that you would be obtaining money through deception, that you would be using criminal coercionand that you would be guilty of binding the people in to slavery

Although a quibbling pedant might query whether declaring that you don't have to comply with statutory rules is a wise move when seeking to initiate court proceedings.

[hucknallred]

Not paid the fee eh?

Now who used that little chestnut to argue his eviction was unlawful? Actually there's 2 I know of.

[jackroe]

This simply doesn't make sense. The King made a charter and used words of inheritance:

"TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs"

...
This is realpolitik, Jack. We don't recognise Magna Carta except where it suits us to do so. We are the people, we are sovereign, we are the government, we are the law.

I don't disagree with you, it seems like everyone here is bipolar, it's either "they're nutters" or "you believe it works" rather than being able to, entertain what they're saying without believing it works. I mean, we're obviously under military occupation by parliamentary supremacists

Warfare involves more than just the “physical plane of war", it also includes "the political, economic, and psychological (also known as moral) planes.” (Clow, Ryan. Psychological Operations: The Need to Understand the Psychological Plane of Warfare. Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1. Retrieved 5 July 2018 from http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no1/05-clow-eng.asp)

Obviously those who adhere to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy (not as a matter of fact but a matter of law) will never admit that parliament is not supreme or sovereign---it's a fairly regressive point of view tho, even in Ancient Greek City States, the view was NOMOS IS OUR KING, LAW IS OUR KING. The mental situation typically associated with there being no restraint on action is psychopathy---now, I'm not saying psychopaths are bad people, but the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is the corporate instantiation of individual psychopathy. The psychopath is not only disinterested in the customs and norms restraining behavior, he doesn't understand that they exist. People who deal with psychopaths in forensic contexts will often encouter individuals who think that the view that there are normative behaviors, other than what the psychopath (sole or aggregate) desires are "stupid." "Look at that stupid person thinking I shouldn't attack him and take his wallet!" "Look at that stupid person thinking he has rights other than those we give him, doesn't he know we have the capacity to kill him" This is already well down the track to mental pathology, most normal people do not approach life from the point view of 'well, we have power to execute people or imprison them, what can we get them to do? Our will is only limited by our imagination.'

And it's a sort of unfortunate plight: psychopaths would need to develop institutions to survive. The "corporate psychopath" is fairly well studied academically, but the study has not extended itself to Government, perhaps there is a conflict of interest in that Universities are heavily subsidized by the Government: indeed, Universitatis is Latin for Corporation, so that Universities exist at all, that is a grant of Government. I guess the tenuousness of this position might cause the University Psychopaths to re-invent everything as a grant of Government, as a way of securing their own privileges and profits.

As for recognizing Magna Carta, I decided to read Coke's Institutes again, and he quotes a judgment made 5 H. 3 calling magna carta statute, so even if it was not good law today, it was good law prior to Henry 3 making his Magna Carta in the 9th year of his reign. https://books.google.ca/books?id=G6PDvg ... &q&f=false So much for the Pope having annulled it!

There's nothing wrong with believing "might makes right," it's just a minority position, and it's fairly strongly associated with psychopathy, not that people with neurological/mental illnesses should feel like they're bad or inferior, but the real question is how the majority who are not psychopaths, who don't approach life from the point of view that "if we band together into this thing called Parliament, we will be too powerful to stop, we can command anything and coerce everyone into obeying it," how are they to deal with psychopaths? Are they to let them walk all over them, or do they have some natural power of self-defense, e.g. pointed sticks? I have it on good authority that it is entirely possible to annul parliamentarians using pointed sticks, e.g. you apply it to the jugular vein and they exsanginuate and O2 sats drop and suddenly they lose their sovereignty.

[jackroe]

The basic question is this: if someone with a mental disorder is waving a piece of paper at you saying it gives him authority over you, are you allowed to exsanguinate him or otherwise neutralize the threat he is making toward you?

It seems like the individual purporting to rule you has already engaged in aggressive warfare, in the moral plane, so the question is if it is useful to respond using physical warfare, in order to abate the encroachment upon your sovereignty. This leads into consideration of the philosophy of warfare: should you only feat if you can defeat the entire army of psychopaths, should you exsanguinate one or two and wait for the rest to kill you or capture you? And one of the difficulties is, take the Easter Rising. There is never guaranteed success in warfare, and the parliamentarians clearly work against people forming armies to oppose parliamentary tyranny, which is of course what they would do to maintain the support network that these mental defectives have created for themselves. It's pretty clear that parliamentarians cannot survive without parliament, pensions, etc. but human beings have survived for thousands of years without these things.

Understood properly, battering someone's ears with a command is an act of war, and at that point, you are simply engaging in self-defense if you use all necessary force.

[eric]

Warfare involves more than just the “physical plane of war", it also includes "the political, economic, and psychological (also known as moral) planes.” (Clow, Ryan. Psychological Operations: The Need to Understand the Psychological Plane of Warfare. Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1. Retrieved 5 July 2018 from http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no1/05-clow-eng.asp)

Jack, I can call you Jack can't I, why are you still here? You are obviously just copypastaing whatever appears first on your screen to satisfy whatever your mind thinks would be appropriate for your incoherent argument. Although I don't know Ryan Clow personally, I do know who he worked with, and who taught him that theory and you obviously didn't read the article. Somehow I have this vision of that particular professor (he was my StratPol III teacher) saying in a thick Hungarian accent "Mister Roe, you don't get the point" while limping around the lecture room. (something about an incident with a Russian land mine).

[longdog]

I don't disagree with you, it seems like everyone here is bipolar, it's either "they're nutters" or "you believe it works" rather than being able to, entertain what they're saying without believing it works.

<snip>TL;DR</snip>

I don't know what you think bipolar disorder is but whatever it is it isn't that.