Why These Arguments DON'T Work!

This is why "freemen of the land" or "common law jurisdiction" or "Magna Carta" arguments do NOT work in court!

Court judgment:

Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it, as there is no contract between us and I am not instructed by you.

💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!

MY CAMERA GEAR

MY CHAIR:

🎓 Brilliant contract law book:
(Affiliate link)

LAW FAQS

CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:

TREE LAW PLAYLIST:

ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:

FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #magnacarta #freemenoftheland

Description contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.

[drjamespotter]

I like ice cream - I claim protection under magnum Carte D'Or.

[fredderickgentle]

You can't break the law unless your an MP

[nice_tri_dan]

Judge: "... I therefore sentence you to 5 years in prison"
Defendant: "Hah! I have a get out of jail free card from Monopoly!"

[jasonhodge]

Claims to not stand under the law then tries to use it for appeal 🤦🏼priceless

[British]

The main problem we have is, if you have enough money you are able to pursue "justice" if you have no money then you will not receive "justice" .

[bluebottle]

Whilst Magna Carta may not apply, Bill of Rights 1688/9 does.

[carolramsey]

The point with the Magna Carta is that it never was intended to be for the benefit of the serfs, who were no more than slaves anyway. They were allowed to work their land to grow their own food but were still obliged to provide service, including military service and make payments to their liege. It was only for the benefit of the nobility, not the plebs. Later, as trades became more sophisticated and the merchants became more powerful they began to wrest control from the nobility and power moved to the House of Commons but government still had little effect on the plebs as taxes were levied on trade and goods. In the villages nobody cared who was King or in charge. The party system of government didn't really get going until the introduction of income tax to pay for the wars which again, at first, only affected the wealthy. As governments spent more and got greedier, taxes began to filter down to the poorer who demanded their say which was through the Parties. So there you have it. It all comes down to money, the only law that matters is what the government says matters and that is statute law which overrides common law and any other law if they have a big enough majority.
As Hitler found when he revoked the rule of law, if you've got the guns they do as they're told or else.

[cologne]

" Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotten? " - Tony Hancock

[kortia]

But aren't the whole court system and most legal teams just one big theatre?

[jamesfarrell]

repealed by who, not the people, time we the people had them changed back

[beinghonestsucks]

The only way to get around the law is to work in politics or finance

[Steven-D-Allan]

Magna Carta has a long history. BBB refers to the 1297 version - which was corrupted by those who sought power over rather than service to the people. Parliament, Acts and Statues were not even around in 1215 when the original Magna Carta was sealed by a group of people who wanted a corrupt King to be held to account. Cromwell had the same vision; removing Charles I and his 'divine right of a king' and later removed Parliament when it claimed to be sovereign over the people. Though he was asked Cromwell also refused to become King/Emperor and remained Lord Protector. One only has to ask why various sections of Magna Carta have been removed, for example Article 61 (remedy for any wrongdoing by the Crown) and ask 'Cui Bono' - who benefits. Slowly but surely those seeking power (absolute power corrupts absolutely) manipulate 'laws' to their own ends and for their own gain. Slavery and apartheid are obvious examples. It is why 'laws' exist in different countries to proclaim different things - for example it is 'illegal' to drink alcohol in some countries but not others. Again, you need to ask why this is and who benefits. I'm not a fan of FOTL but England and Wales do operate under Common law and Magna Carta is the founding document of many legal systems including the United States. In short, just because someone makes up a law to tell you what to do doesn't mean you have to do it and sometimes you should have the balls to say that some legalese BS is absolutely unlawful.

[gordonlawrence]

Magna Carta is in my opinion one of the most fascinating law documents written. Specifically it gives an insight into life at the time and some history. It gives a good insight into how people perceived law at the time.

[jimjim]

How can your gang rules apply to us if we don't consent?
So common law doesn't exist?

[paulkent]

Thanks for your input.
Could you please clarify the issue of oaths; as a barister it is my understanding that you have have sworn an oath to the BAR (private), does this affect the oath made to the court (public)?
Do you advise on Law or legislation?
Which jurisdiction(s) does (do) the magistrates court operate? & does this differ in Crown Court?
Is a writ of Quo Warranto recognised by the courts?

[josh]

The crown, the magistrates courts etc etc these are laws they teach you and nothing is above them. So they want you to believe so the patriarch stays in place!.

[SimonBlandford]

From my limited reading up and listening to talks on common law both examples above would have problems even under a "common law" context. In the first example, a Driving license could be seen as a contract that had been entered into subject to terms and conditions such as having valid insurance. In the second example there were victims who had experienced some kind of harm or loss from a perpetrator. This would be considered a crime even under common law.

Also the name "common law" itself is problematic i.e. "law of the land" vs "judge precedent".

[sparkycalledmarky]

As I understood it, the rights given by the Magna Carta never applied carte blanche to anyone, they were the reserve of the gentry of the time. The peasants, or regular folk, weren't afforded those rights and had no opportunity (even if they could read, and knew the contents of the document) to claim any of the rights afforded by it.
Essentially, the Judiciary decided if you were a "freeman" or not, rather than it being self declared, and the common man would not be accepted as a "freeman" (or whatever the term was at the time) no matter how much they protested they were.

[srspower]

What I would like you to clear up us the notion that the UK has an unwritten constitution. My mum says that it does and she was a practising crown prosecutor all her life. But for me the term does not make sense since this supposed 'unwritten constitution' is defined by historic case law and since any elected government can tear up or change any historic law at the whim of parliament how on earth can it be described as constitutional? Constitutional laws are essentially human rights and are written in stone. You can debate their meaning but you can't just tear them up! Ergo I believe that we do not have a constitution, written or otherwise.

[kennethsimmons]

High court judge ruled me a vexatious litigants in 2003 based on omission of evidence available from embarrassed counsel for post office. Same solicitor as per obtained 320k of taxpayer money to bankrupt Lee Castleton (Mandy Talbot)