Quelling the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion”: Part Two . . . MCLR gurus harm people. [. . . .]. These gurus teach illusions that will predictably fail. They promise much, but their clientele gets less than nothing.[1] In spite of a recent decision of the Alberta court which should have persuaded her otherwise,[2] “Jacquie Phoenix”, whose last name is really Robinson, continues shamelessly to employ pseudo law. In August of 2020, the Alberta court released a decision about Ms. Robinson’s meddling in a high-conflict child custody dispute.[3] She had claimed to act for the mother, maintaining that she had the latter’s power of attorney. To justify her actions, Ms. Robinson relied on the pseudo-law concept of what the court described as the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” (“MCLR”), a muddled mishmash of misbegotten mumble jumble that does not withstand the application of an iota of basic common sense. In its August decision, the court took apart the notion of the MCLR,[4] pointing out that the act of employing pseudo-law strategies is abusive and causes harm. At that time, the court ordered that, among other things, Ms. Robinson could not act for the mother in the custody dispute and invited her to make submissions on why she should not be forbidden in any other matter before the Alberta courts. Was Ms. Robinson contrite? Did she learn a lesson? The answer is most emphatically, “No”. A court decision which was released just before the end of 2020[5] sets out what subsequently happened: MHVB, the mother, did not appear for a hearing of criminal charges for abduction and a warrant was issued for her arrest; AVI, the father, successfully applied to the court to vary parenting arrangements; in his application, he stated that he and his lawyer had been “threatened by MHVB and Ms. Robinson, who claim that they are above the law”;[6] Ms. Robinson made public statements, including video rebuttals which rejected the court’s authority, proclaiming that the court’s judgment “had no more effect on (her) than a statement by the CEO of McDonalds”;[7] and Ms. Robinson sent “notices” and other documents to court staff and had a hand in other materials sent to the Associate Chief Justice which were similar to those she had already sent, erroneously relying on “Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215”,[8] declaring that commonwealth governments had been dissolved, stating that the Alberta court had been “Usurped by a Treasonous Regime”,[9] that the Nazis had laid the foundation of the European Union as part of some nefarious plan,[10] that a succession of UK prime ministers had been engaged in high treason and sedition, and that the last “constitutionally correct Coronation Oath was taken by the traitor James II in 1685”.[11] In response to the foregoing, the court made various orders designed to prevent Ms. Robinson from continuing to employ pseudo-legal tactics. It also warned Ms. Robinson that she could face contempt of court and concluded as follows: These schemes are nothing more than cons, led by people who rely and feed on the oft-quoted statement attributed to P.T. Barnum (of circus fame): a sucker is born every minute. That is true now as it was when spoken more than 150 years ago. The Courts are not suckers. And the courts will not be intimidated. [12] The use of pseudo law is abusive,[13] may constitute contempt of court, [14] and “gurus” like Ms. Robinson who propagate it are charlatans. They provide no small disservice to the public, including people who genuinely need a lawyer. Those who need legal assistance should stay far away from the likes of Ms. Robinson and seek the aid of a lawyer or a reputable organization which can provide legitimate, timely and practical help and guidance. [1] AVI v. MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790 [hereinafter AVI #2] at para.53. [2] AVI v. MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 [hereinafter AVI #1]. An earlier blog about the decision can be found here. [3] Ibid. [4] Particularly at Ibid., para. 72 et seq. [5] AVI #2, supra note 1. [6] Ibid. at para 24. [7] Ibid. at para. 26. [8] Ibid. at para. 28. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. at para. 33. [11] Ibid. at paras 35. [12]Ibid. at para 54. [13] AVI #1, supra note 2 at para. 72 et seq. [14] AVI #2, supra note 1note at para. 52. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, LitigationJanuary 5, 2021January 5, 2021
The Alberta Court Quells the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” In layman’s terms, pseudo law is pure nonsense.[1] The Alberta court has once again called out pseudo law, that body of “spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law and purport to be real law”.[1] Simply put, the phenomenon constitutes nothing more than the propagation of gobbledygook.The audacity of practitioners of pseudo law is breathtaking. In the face of universal rejection by the Canadian courts, they employ falsity to “gain an advantage, authority, and other benefits”,[2] claiming that the law does not apply to them.“Jacquie Phoenix”, whose family name appears really to be Robinson, attempted, without success, to use the black art of pseudo law to intervene in a child-custody dispute.As the court sets out in AVI v. MHVB, Ms. Robinson, who is not a lawyer, advised the court that she was acting for the mother in the dispute, claiming that she had the latter’s power of attorney. The letter which she sent to the court about this is quite muddled and alarmingly treats the child at the heart of the dispute as to property. It is reported as reading as follows:This is to inform you that [MHVB] is Lawfully standing under Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta which was Invoked on March 23rd 2001 according to the Constitutional Royal Protocol. The Court of Queens Bench is an Unlawful Assembly with No Authority to deal with this matter since the Invocation of Article 61 thus All Judgments made by the Court of Queens’s Bench in this matter are Null and Void. [MHVB] and All of her Property are Protected by the Constitution and the People of the Commonwealth Realm. We require the Immediate Restoration of Her Property see enclosed Exhibit :G in the notice of Conditional Acceptance. Failure to restore the Property of [MHVB] within 7 Days of receiving this letter will constitute High treason, which still carries the Gallows. I urge you to consider Eichmann vs the People “I was just doing my job” is no defence. Nuremberg. Maximin Law Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse[3]From the Magna Carta of 1215 to the mixed-up idea that a court constitutes an “Unlawful Assembly” through outrageous references to “High Treason”, “the Gallows”, Adolf Eichmann and the Nuremberg Trials in two short paragraphs!Among other things, Ms. Robinson challenged the custody proceedings by relying on what the court called the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” (referred to as “MCLR”), which appears to go something like this:[4]members of the MCLR purport to swear allegiance to a British aristocrat under what they say is Article 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215;by virtue of their oath, they are no longer subject to the courts, police and others who are guilty of “High Treason” for failing to obey what they claim is the “Constitutional Law” or the “Common Law” as they define it (or, more accurately put, they make up);the aristocrat in question is identified as Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, who appears to be Baron Craigmyle (Thomas Columba Shaw) and whose ancestors were not among the barons involved in the Magna Carta of 1215;he is, however, one of 28 peers who in 2001 signed a petition to Queen Elizabeth II to request that she not give royal assent to legislation ratifying the Treaty of Nice, an international agreement which would have the effect of increasing the powers of the European Parliament over member states;in so doing, the peers relied on the Magna Carta, declaring themselves in “lawful rebellion” under it (their petition had little effect – royal assent was granted, the treaty was ratified, and the United Kingdom did not find itself in legal chaos or civil war);MCLR participants then send a series of notices to the court which set out that they are no longer subject to conventional legal authorities because such authorities are comprised of traitors, etc, who have subverted the law (as they fashion it);instead, they are loyal to the barons who in 2001 invoked the Magna Carta in opposition to the Treaty of Nice (and who would no doubt find it perplexing that someone in Canada is swearing allegiance to one of them);in addition, they claim that by assenting to the Treaty, the British monarch breaks her coronation oath, other subordinate oaths are invalidated and the United Kingdom falls into chaos.In lengthy written reasons, the court methodically dismantles the notion of the MCLR[5] as well as the other troubling claims advanced by Ms. Robinson, pointing out that employing pseudo-law strategies is abusive, an indication that someone may not be a fit parent, and that doing so causes real harm to people. With respect to the latter point, the judge observed as follows: I can only guess at the scope and kind of misconduct and self-injury that results from MCLR belief. But in this case I know that there is a little four-year old girl whose health, safety, and well being are being placed in jeopardy by these ideas.[1]The court prohibited Ms. Robinson from acting for the mother in the custody dispute and is in the process of considering other restrictions on her ability to participate in legal proceedings.What the purveyors of pseudo law do is not a joke: it is abusive, self-destructive (how often have they succeeded in court?), counterfactual, and uses up already overtaxed judicial resources. They should simply stop. [1] AVI v. MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 at para. 1 [hereinafter AVI v. MHVB].[1] Ibid.[2] Ibid. at para. 2[3] Ibid. at para. 6.[4] Ibid. at paras 39- 71.[5] Particularly at Ibid., para. 72 et seq.[6] Ibid. at para. 135. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, LitigationOctober 19, 2020January 5, 2021
