Except that Linebaugh is sloppy. In his article of 5th September he quotes Sir Edward Coke:
" 'No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.'
We parse the sentence in three parts 1) the subject (no free man) is followed by 2) eight or nine proscribed actions making up the predicate which is then qualified by 3) a climax to the sentence stating two legal principles which provide the exceptions, trial by jury and law of the land."
The trouble is that in 1215 there was no trial by jury. There were grand juries - juries of presentment. By chance, in that same year, the Lateran Council of the Catholic Church banned clerics from taking part in trial by ordeal. The English trial system collapsed, except for trial by battle amongst the notables. The accused were imprisoned until a mode of trial could be agreed upon. By 1219 there was still no resolution to this problem. "The English judges ... decided to make use of the local people already in the court as the representatives of the hundreds and vills" (Baker, J.H. (1990) An Introduction to English Legal History London: Butterworths).
The Barons' demand to King John was that Barons be tried by Barons and be not at the mercy of royal 'justice'. That practice survived in England for many centuries - see the trial of Queen Caroline - http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?mkey=mw00036 - literally see! The Great Charter concerned the relationship between the King and the nobility. It was not a charter of popular rights. That needed the French Revolution.
Richard.