four December 2020 by

AVI and MHVB and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix (Third Party and Unauthorised Alleged Representative) 2020 ABQB 489

I used to be placed on to this choice from the Courtroom of Queen’s Bench of Alberta by a response to a submit from the Secret Barrister on Twitter (@barristerSecret) . This considerations the Magna Carta tsunami that has wreaked a certain quantity of havoc on social media in response to the federal government’s Covid restrictions.

Now we have been taking an curiosity within the Freemen on the Land phenomenon from the early days of the UKHRB. See Adam Wagner’s 2011 “Freemen of the Dangerous Nonsense” and his comment on the 2012 Alberta case Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) 

I urge you to learn the Secret Barrister’s article in full: Can the Magna Carta Give You Immunity from Covid Regulations?. Simply by means of abstract, I’ll offer you a number of quotes from the article earlier than giving a short description of the Alberta judgment. The Secret Barrister reviews that enterprise homeowners have been posting in public locations their interpretation of this historic doc as a result of they imagine it to

confer immunity from the rules requiring them to shut their companies for four weeks. Sadly, because the proliferation of punitive monetary penalties demonstrates, no such immunity exists.

Followers of the group referred to as “Freemen on the Land” declare to have pledged an oath of allegiance to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, certainly one of a gaggle of British friends who campaigned in 2001 to dam the UK’s ratification of the Treaty of Good, a part of the sequence of agreements to increase the powers of EU authorities. The Secret Barrister describes the self-styled “Freemen on the Land” as

a grouping of proselytising people who imagine that by misquoting Magna Carta and fundamental tenets of contract legislation, they will someway place themselves exterior the jurisdiction of the legislation of England & Wales. By making numerous incoherent and illogical assertions cloaked in legalese, they profess to be sure by “different” legal guidelines, such because the legal guidelines of the ocean or long-repealed mediaeval treaties, and declare that the authorized system has no management over them.

As he factors out, this “fraud” has already been adjudicated upon elsewhere; the Courtroom of Queen’s Bench of Alberta within the case of Meads v. Meads, the 2012 judgment referred to above. The ruling “painstakingly and comprehensively dismantled the authorized shibboleths of those numerous linked actions (referred to by the choose as “Organised Pseudolegal Industrial Argument litigants”, or “OPCA”, resulting from a typical thread of the teams’ arguments being that in an effort to be sure by the legislation, you must explicitly conform to it, akin to getting into a business contract).”

And now we now have the most recent from Excessive Courtroom in Alberta. Mr Justice Robert A. Graesser doesn’t mince his phrases in his opening statements:

[1] Pseudolaw is a set of spurious legally incorrect concepts that superficially sound like legislation, and purport to be actual legislation. In layman’s phrases, pseudolaw is pure nonsense.
[2] Pseudolaw is usually employed by conspiratorial, fringe, prison, and dissident minorities who declare pseudolaw replaces or displaces standard legislation. These teams try to achieve benefit, authority, and different advantages by way of this false legislation.

The Canadian department of Freemen on the Land claimed that Canada’s legal guidelines solely utilized to them in the event that they consented to it, and, because the choose observes, “unsurprisingly, Freemen normally didn’t.”

In Alberta members of those and different “pseudo-legal” teams have been submitting paperwork with the courts with titles like “Discover of Lawful Objection & Declaratation of Standing in Legislation” [sic]; the court docket’s misprint, not the Freemen’s. The Canadian authors of these things declare that they too have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Scots Lord, and say that on that foundation they’re exterior Canadian legislation.

This extraordinary declare is allegedly the results of Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta and the actions a gaggle of insurgent barons whose resistance to Crown treason, unusually sufficient, started in 2001, nearly eight centuries after the demise of King John in 1216.

The “Alleged Unauthorised Consultant” to this dispute, “Jacquie Phoenix” claimed to be representing the mom in a bitter custody battle. Her actual identify is Jacqueline Robinson. As a member of what the choose labels the “Magna Carta Lawful Revolt” Ms Robinson maintained that Canada’s legal guidelines didn’t apply to her or her shopper nor might the courts implement them.

Graesser J acquired a letter from Ms Robinson two months earlier than handing down this ruling. Within the letter, she claimed to signify the mom of the kid on the centre of the dispute, and stated that if he didn’t order the return of the kid he can be accused of sedition and sentenced accordingly.

The choose barred her from representing the mom, saying that Robinson had abused the court docket course of as a “busybody” interloper.

I can solely guess on the scope and type of misconduct and self-injury that outcomes from the MCLR [the Magna Carta] perception. However on this case I do know that there’s a little four-year-old lady whose well being, security, and well-being are being positioned in jeopardy by these concepts.”

The choose has not solely barred Ms Robinson from representing every other shoppers in Alberta’s courts, however has additionally stated he would ship a replica of his choice to Lord Craigmyle.

I believe he ought to know that the lots of, if not 1000’s, of oaths of allegiance that he’s receiving are a part of an organized marketing campaign of deception and disinformation.