Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790 Date:20201216 Docket: FL03 55142 Registry: Edmonton Between: AVI Applicant and MHVB Respondent and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix Third Party and Unauthorized Alleged Representative _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [1] This is a follow-up to my decision of August 26, 2020 in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 [AVI #1]. That decision centred on an intermeddler to a child custody dispute. The third party, whose actual name is Jacqueline Robinson, instead self-identified as “Jacquie Phoenix, Sovereign Woman Living on the Land, Legal Beneficiary / Soul Administrator To the Trust of Page: 2 the Legal Fiction Known as Jacqueline Robinson”. I will in this decision refer to Ms. Robinson by her actual name, “Jacqueline Robinson”, rather than the legally meaningless “Strawman” legal persona she has adopted. [2] As discussed in AVI #1, Ms. Robinson is a pseudolaw promoter, or “guru”. Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [“Meads”], ACJ Rooke grouped these concepts together under the term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments”, or “OPCA”. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense. [3] Gurus are a particularly obnoxious component of the pseudolaw phenomenon. They operate as “Typhoid Marys” who spread the pseudolaw “disease of ideas” into new populations: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolaw Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53:3 Alta LR 609 at 611. [4] In Meads at paras 669-671, Rooke ACJ characterized OPCA gurus as “evil counsellors”, “falsifiers”, and “hustlers” who “profit at the expense of naïve and vulnerable customers”, “selling lies or wildly dubious concepts.” [5] I agree with these descriptions of OPCA gurus. They apply to Ms. Robinson. As I observed in AVI #1 at para 19, Ms. Robinson knows her techniques do not work because, despite having deployed her pseudolaw shield, Ms. Robinson was nevertheless convicted of traffic offences in 2019. [6] There is a temptation to ignore OPCAs and treat them as irritants. That would perhaps be appropriate for one-off situations, but where many people are involved and there is some sort of organization, the public needs to be protected from them. Sadly, conspiracy theories appear to be gaining in recognition. Many people search for “truth” whether it be legal truths, medical truths, or news truths on the Internet. There is no doubt that the Internet is an amazing source of information, but there are no filters to distinguish between fact and fiction. The decriers of “fake news” are too frequently the creators of fake news. [7] The fakery of the Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion is exemplified by this case. A year ago, MHVB had access to her daughter. She wanted greater access and access without restrictions. After joining with Ms. Robinson and her group, MHVB no longer has any access to her daughter. She has been removed as a guardian of that child. There is a warrant for her arrest following her failure to appear on criminal proceedings against her. [8] This decision is not about MHVB any longer, it is about Ms. Robinson and the nonsense she spreads. It is also about her threats and intimidation to the Court and court staff. A. The Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion [MCLR] [9] Ms. Robinson promotes a variant of pseudolaw that I named “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion”, or “MCLR”. AVI #1 at paras 38-71 explains my understanding of the MCLR scheme and its conceptual foundation. [10] In brief, MCLR claims that if one sends an oath of allegiance that invokes Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, then that places you outside UK and Commonwealth state, court, and police authority. You are now a sworn oathsman (or oathswoman), and serve under the banner of 28 rebel barons who disapprove of the European Union. These rebel barons in 2001 invoked the “Constitutional Royal Protocol”, and shattered Page: 3 “English Constitutional law”. In fact, according to MCLR theory, there has been no valid government authority in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth from 2001 onward. [11] If this narrative sounds ridiculous, that is because, factually, MCLR theory is ridiculous. Lord Craigmyle has no idea why people are sending him oaths of allegiance and ignores these documents. If the UK (and Commonwealth) have been in a state of constitutional chaos and rebellion for the past nearly 20 years then I, and apparently everyone else including Lord Craigmyle himself, have not noticed. [12] Then there are the numerous other flaws in this scheme that I identify and review in AVI #1 at paras 72-104. For example, Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late. [13] In AVI #1, I chose to debunk the foundations for MCLR theory, rather than simply write it off as baseless. I do not intend to repeat my analysis here, as it is already completed. [14] This litigation is, sadly, an example where pseudolaw has contributed to a negative and unfortunate outcome. Ms. Robinson’s gibberish has real-world victims. B. AVI, MHVB, A, and Z [15] Earlier, I indicated Ms. Robinson intruded into a high-conflict child custody matter as an interfering third party. I was case managing this dispute. Briefly, MHVB, the mother of a now five-year old child, Z, abducted Z and fled to the US. When Z was recovered, Z’s father, AVI, was granted custody of Z. MHVB, and MHVB’s mother, A, had access to Z. [16] Ms. Robinson then entered the fray. On June 27, 2020, I received a package of documents from Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson (incorrectly) claimed to represent MHVB by a “Power of Attorney”. Ms. Robinson declared that MHVB was a Magna Carta Lawful Rebel, with the result that MHVB was purportedly outside of court authority: “All Judgments made by the Court of Queen’s Bench in this matter are Null and Void”. Further, my failure to deliver MHVB “her Property” - Z - within seven days “will constitute as High Treason”, and I would face “the Gallows”: AVI #1 at para 6. [17] AVI and his lawyer received essentially the same threats from Ms. Robinson, but were also told that they would be penalized $50,000 per day until MHVB got “her Property” back. [18] I wrote AVI #1 in response, and at para 34: 1. required Ms. Robinson only communicate with the Court using the name “Jacqueline Robinson”, rather than the “Jacquie Phoenix” persona; and 2. prohibited Ms. Robinson from: a) purporting to represent MHVB in any capacity; b) being involved with documentation relating to the AVI v MHVB matter, and c) communicating with the Court in relation to the AVI v MHVB matter. Page: 4 [19] The exception to the final prohibition is that Ms. Robinson was invited to make submissions on why she should not be prohibited from being involved in or acting as a representative in any litigation in Alberta Courts: AVI #1 at paras 120-122. [20] I also warned MHVB (at paras 124-129) that attempting to employ OPCA strategies had very negative potential consequences for MHVB’s future interactions and role with Z. I observed that MHVB claiming a child was “her Property” did not reflect well on MHVB as a responsible caregiver. I strongly recommended that MHVB obtain professional legal assistance, or at a minimum, contact a public legal assistance resource. II. Subsequent Developments [21] A number of events have transpired since AVI #1 was released. [22] I have received no submissions from Ms. Robinson on why she should not be prohibited from acting as a legal representative in Alberta Courts. MHVB sent no further MCLR documents to this Court, and therefore appears to have abandoned a partially completed MCLR “Three/Five Letters” process that targeted Associate Chief Justice Nielsen of this Court. MHVB did not attend her criminal abduction prosecution hearing (R v MHVB, Edmonton 191419951P101 (Alta PC)), and so now MHVB is also facing failure to appear criminal charges (R v MHVB, Edmonton 200728665P101 (Alta PC)). A Warrant has issued for MHVB’s arrest. [23] On September 11, 2020, AVI applied to vary Z’s parenting arrangements to suspend MHVB’s parenting time. [24] AVI’s application states he and his lawyer had been threatened by MHVB and Ms. Robinson, who claim they are above the law. AVI perceived a “severe risk” that MHVB would abduct Z again, and that MHVB, Ms. Robinson, and/or Ms. Robinson’s followers would engage in illegal activity directed to Z. [25] Justice Sulyma granted AVI’s application, on September 14, 2020, and ruled AVI is the sole guardian and decision-maker for Z. Any further direct or indirect contact between MHVB and Z is prohibited. MHVB did not attend this application. [26] AVI in his September 11, 2020, application also reported that Ms. Robinson had made public statements in response to AVI #1, including video rebuttals of articles published in the National Post reporting on AVI #1. Ms.