[1]               Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense.

[2]               Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads], Associate Chief Justice Rooke reviewed many forms of and variations on pseudolaw that have been deployed in Canada. In his decision, he described populations and personalities that use these ideas, and explained how these “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [“OPCA”] concepts are legally false and universally rejected by Canadian courts. Rooke ACJ concluded OPCA strategies are instead scams promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 180, 670-671 [Unrau #2].

[3]               To date Canada has weathered two waves of pseudolaw. In the 2000 “Detaxers” held seminars and taught classes on how to supposedly avoid paying income tax, for example by claiming that ROBERT GRAESSER is a legal person and a taxpayer, while Robert-A.: Graesser is a physical human being and therefore exempt from tax: Meads at paras 87-98. The Detaxers faded away by the end of that decade as their schemes consistently failed, and their gurus were charged, convicted, and incarcerated: e.g. R v Porisky, 2016 BCSC 1757, aff’d 2019 BCCA 159; R v Watts, 2016 ONSC 4843, aff’d 2018 ONCA 148, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38141 (27 October 2018); Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53:3 Alta L Rev 609 at 624 [Netolitzky, “History”].

[4]               Next came the Freemen-on-the-Land, a group founded by street comedian Robert Arthur Menard: Netolitzky, “History” at 624-27. Freemen claimed that Canadian law only applied to them if they consented to it, and, unsurprisingly, Freemen usually didn’t. Unpleasantly, many Freemen turned out to be criminals who decided to “opt out” of being subject to narcotics and firearms legislation, and even prohibitions against sexual assault of children: Unrau #2 at paras 194-198; R v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541. Freeman activity peaked in the early 2010s, and in the following years Freemen were encountered less and less in Canadian courts, at least in part again due to the fact that Freeman pseudolaw was no more successful than the schemes promoted by Detaxers: Netolitzky, “History” at 626-627.

[5]               However, the wheel of time grinds on, and so it is not surprising that this new decade has brought with it an emerging and different pseudolaw community, or “movement”: Meads at paras 168-198. Over the past several months judges and officials in Alberta Courts have been receiving peculiar nearly identical “fill-in-the-blank” boilerplate documents with titles like “Notice of Lawful Objection & Declaratation of Standing in Law” [sic] (see Appendix “A”) and “Notice of Conditional Acceptance” (see Appendix “D”). These documents are emblazoned with a strange crest titled “Practical Lawful Dissent” (see Appendix “E”). The authors of these items declare that they have sworn an oath of allegiance to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, and say that on that basis they are outside Canadian law. This extraordinary claim is allegedly the result of Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta and the actions a group of rebel barons whose resistance to Crown treason, strangely enough, began in 2001, almost eight centuries after the death of King John in 1216.

[6]               I am one of those document recipients. In my case I received a package dated June 27, 2020 from a person calling herself “Jacquie Phoenix”, but whose actual legal name is Jacqueline Robinson. Phoenix/Robinson claims to act on behalf of a mother, “MHVB”, thanks to a “Power of Attorney”. Phoenix/Robinson’s cover letter to the June 27, 2020 document package reads:

[7]               The name “Jacquie Phoenix” also appears on other boilerplate documents received by this Court. For example, documents relating to an “Elizabeth Zuk” are signed “P.P. Jacquie Phoenix EZuk [red ink fingerprint]” (or variations thereof). “Jacquie Phoenix” also appears as a witness to documents sent by MHBV to Associate Chief Justice Nielsen and to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire.

[8]               This decision has two objectives:

[9]               I will start by investigating the person who sent me the June 27, 2020 documents: Jacqueline Robinson.

[10]           I recognize that it is unusual for the presiding judge to be the investigator in the matter and then to make a decision based on his research. However, I believe it would be a complete waste of judicial resources to require some sort of process to be commenced so that a decision could be made in the “usual” way. Additionally, doing so risks giving credibility to something completely undeserving of attention. The rule of law does not countenance proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and OPCA litigation falls in all three categories.

[11]           “Jacquie Phoenix” has been sending documents to Alberta Courts on her own behalf as well. In these documents she self-identifies as “Jacquie Phoenix, Sovereign Woman Living on the Land, Legal Beneficiary / Soul Administrator To the Trust of the Legal Fiction Known as Jacqueline Robinson”.

[12]           This confusing and nonsensical language indicates that Phoenix/Robinson subscribes to a pseudolaw concept called “Strawman Theory”. It is very cult-like and is best equated with works of science fiction. Strawman theory has been described as an exorcism ritual pretending to be law: Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1069-1078.

[13]           This theory is described in Meads at paras 417-446; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88; and Potvin (Re) at paras 83-92; 110-120. Strawman Theory purports that people have two halves: 1) a physical “flesh and blood” element that is outside the authority of governments, police, and courts, and 2) the “Strawman”, an immaterial legal aspect that is subject to “conventional” authority. There are many Strawman Theory variations. In most the two halves of the duality are identified by letter case and punctuation, where mixed case names are human beings, and all capitals names are the Strawman.

[14]           In Phoenix/Robinson’s case she is calling her physical half a “Sovereign Woman Living on the Land”, and that “Sovereign Woman” is called “Jacquie Phoenix”. The Strawman half is “Jacqueline Robinson”, a “Legal Fiction” “Trust”. “Phoenix” appears to be claiming she is the beneficiary and administrator of this “Trust”. These variations on the overall Strawman Theory concept have no legal relevance or merit. As Master Schulz observed in Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) at para 83, different versions of Strawman Theory are “nothing but the Strawman tarted up in a new dress.”

[15]           All this is a whole lot of nothing. Canadian Courts have for twenty years rejected Strawman Theory. It was a keystone of many Detaxer theories and failed: Meads. Robert Arthur Menard promised his Freemen followers they did not have to follow the law - only their “legal fiction” Strawman did. That also did not work. Instead Freemen and other OPCA litigants went to jail (e.g. R v Berg; R v Zombori, 2013 BCSC 2461, aff’d 2016 BCCA 9), lost their homes (e.g. Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652; Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858; Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry, 2018 ABQB 951), and had access to their children restricted or terminated (e.g. CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388; ANB v Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97).

[16]           The Strawman duality is so notoriously false that simply asserting Strawman Theory creates a presumption that the person who advances this concept does so in bad faith and for an abusive and ulterior purpose: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly rejected leave applications based on Strawman Theory concepts: Donald J Netolitzky & Richard Warman, “Enjoy the Silence: Pseudolaw at the Supreme Court of Canada” (2020) 57:3 Alta L Rev 715.

[17]           Nevertheless, here in 2020 we find “Phoenix” claiming to administer the Legal Fiction “Robinson” Trust. Hereon I will refer to Robinson by her true name, “Jacqueline Robinson”, rather the meaningless alternative persona she has adopted. In any case, for court purposes it does not matter what a person chooses to call themself: R v Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2109 at paras 43-47.

[18]           Robinson has been warned about the true state of law in Canada. Legal Counsel from this Court responded to form documents sent to a justice of this Court, noting that these documents appear to invoke OPCA concepts, and recommending that Robinson review Meads. “EZuk P.P. Jacquie Phoenix” responded with threats of “Full Asset Stripping and Life in Prison” [emphasis in original], and concluded:

[19]           Robinson is therefore perfectly well aware of what the real law is in Canada, and that in the present day the Magna Carta is a historical document with no remaining legal force in Canada (Meads at paras 101, 125-126, 228, 386, 407). She refuses to accept that. Robinson also likely knows that her swearing an oath to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire in January of 2019 had no effect on the jurisdiction of Alberta Courts because on December 9, 2019 she was convicted in the Provincial Court of Alberta for Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6, s 51(e) (driving without a valid licence) and s 53(1)(c) (operating a motor vehicle with expired licence plates) offenses, and fined $744.

[20]           What aggravates Robinson’s own conduct is Robinson is now involving others in her legally false pseudolaw schemes. That brings us to MHVB and her purported “property”: Z.

[21]           I am the case management justice assigned to a high-conflict family law dispute that involves a father “AVI”, MHVB, “A” who is MHVB’s mother, and “Z” - the young girl who is the purported property of MHVB according to Robinson. I have anonymized the names of some individuals to preserve the privacy and personal information of the father and child.

[22]           On November 17, 2016, Henderson J on an interim basis ordered shared parenting time for Z, joint decision-making by the parents, and confirmed AVI was a guardian for Z. However, in the fall of 2019 MHVB took Z to the US and did not return Z per the existing court order structure. Z was ultimately returned to Canada with the assistance of US authorities. MHBV is presently facing criminal charges for abduction of Z.

[23]           After Z was recovered on November 21, 2019 I, as case management justice, ordered that AVI be the primary day-to-day parent for Z, joint decision-making concerning Z would continue, and that both MHBV and A would have only supervised parenting time with Z.

[24]           In Court filings in the family law file and in an emergency protection order file, AVI reports that MHVB has now fired her civil and criminal defence counsel, and has not taken advantage of her parenting time rights with Z in months. Instead, AVI and AVI’s lawyer have begun receiving OPCA documents from Robinson, purportedly on behalf of MHVB. Appendix “F” reproduces one such document, where Robinson purports to bill AVI’s lawyer $50,000 per day until AVI’s “property” (Z) is returned.

[25]           On July 24, 2020 AVI applied for and received restraining orders against Robinson and MHVB. Those restraining orders were renewed on August 11, 2020. Neither Robinson nor MHVB attended the August 11, 2020 hearing.

[26]           The lawyer registry of the Law Society of Alberta does not include a lawyer named “Jacqueline Robinson” or “Jacquie Phoenix”. I am satisfied from review of documents sent to the Court by “Jacquie Phoenix” that those documents do not purport that Robinson is a lawyer or otherwise authorized by the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8 to represent persons in Alberta Courts.

[27]           Instead, Robinson’s July 27, 2020 packet includes a document titled “Power of Attorney Contract:” that is reproduced in Appendix “G”. This document, signed June 27, 2020, purports to authorize Robinson act on behalf of MHBV. The identity of the “David Robinson” in the title area is unknown. Furthermore, I note that this document is not a “contract” since “Jacquie Phoenix: Robinson” promises to act on MHVB’s behalf “for no personal financial gain whatsoever”, so there is no reciprocal exchange of consideration between the two parties.

[28]           Robinson claims she is authorized to represent MHVB in relation to Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action FL03 55142. Robinson is wrong. Legal Profession Act, ss 102, 106 prohibits any legal representation of natural persons in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench except by lawyers.

[29]           Courts across Canada have repeatedly rejected the proposition that granting someone a “Power of Attorney” makes that individual the equivalent of a lawyer: e.g. Law Society of British Columbia v Bryfogle, 2007 BCCA 511 at paras 16-17; Facchin Estate, 2012 BCCA 112 at para 21; Perreal v Knibb, 2014 ABQB 15 at paras 36-39; Fiander v Mills at paras 8-9.

[30]           The Rules of Court contemplate a party having a litigation representative, but do not provide that a litigant can appoint their own litigation representative. Rule 2.11 contemplates someone self-appointing as a litigation representative in limited circumstances. For an adult, those circumstances are limited to adults who lack capacity under the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, SA 2008, c A-4.2. There is no indication that MHVB lacks capacity as defined in the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act.

[31]           This makes Robinson a third-party “busybody” interloper in someone else’s affairs. Busybody activity is an abuse of court processes (Unrau #2 at para 664), and I find that Robinson has abused the Court by attempting to intrude into the FL03 55142 action.

[32]           Further, no one who uses OPCA concepts is a fit legal representative in Canadian courts: R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27; Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213; Shannon v The Queen, 2016 TCC 255; R v Ciciarelli, 2019 ONSC 6719. The fact that Robinson is employing OPCA strategies aggravates her misconduct.

[33]           I therefore order that any document that Robinson has directed to the Court, or to AVI, or to AVI’s counsel, has no legal effect or relevance, except as evidence of Robinson’s abusive litigation conduct, and possibly in relation to MHVB’s future status in relation to Z. The following documents will be placed on the FL 03 55142 file, but only for the purpose of documenting Robinson’s and MHVB’s misconduct:

[34]           In light of Robinson’s illegal attempt to represent MHVB, her busybody litigant status, and Robinson’s engaging in OPCA litigation, I further order that Robinson:

[35]           I warn Robinson that failing to follow these instructions is contempt of court and may lead to arrest, detention, fines and/or incarceration. If Robinson disagrees with my imposing these binding requirements her remedy is to appeal this decision and my Order to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

[36]           I take this opportunity to discuss additional potential prospective implications of Robinson’s illegal activities.

[37]           The documents that Robinson, MHVB, and other aligned individuals have sent to this Court are obviously OPCA materials and attempt to implement a pseudolaw scheme to defeat state and court authority. This particular variation on pseudolaw appears to be new, at least in Canada. This decision is therefore a useful opportunity to investigate, document, and dismiss these Magna Carta Article 61 claims as legally false, spurious, and factually absurd.

[38]           First, I will indicate my understanding of what the documents that have been received by the Court from Robinson, MHVB, and others are intended to do, and how they purport to achieve that result. As far as I am aware no court in Canada or the Commonwealth has to date responded to this new OPCA scheme so I will name it “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” or “MCLR”.

[39]           Many of the terms and much of the language used in MCLR materials is vague, inconsistent, or apparently simply invented out of thin air. I will provide several examples.

[40]           Robinson’s July 27, 2020 document says “... [t]he Court of Queens Bench is an Unlawful Assembly ...” [sic]. Correspondence from “EZuk P.P. Jacquie Phoenix” says either a court officer or the Court is “operating as a Foreign Corporation”. MHVB’s “Notice of Lawful Objection & Declaratation of Standing in Law” says all courts are “Private Corporation Businesses ... run by criminally established private corporation enterprise”. So, what is it? Are courts an “Assembly”, “Foreign Corporation” or “Private Corporation”? Does Robinson know what the words “Assembly” and “Corporation” mean?

[41]           Robinson’s documents invoke “the Constitution and the People of the Commonwealth Realm”. What are these? Is Robinson identifying the Canada’s Constitution: The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11? How about the constitutional documents of other Commonwealth nation states? Or is she referring to something else, a universal constitution of all Commonwealth tradition nations? MCLR documents (e.g. Appendix “A”) also refer to a “English and Commonwealth constitution”. If the latter alternative is what is intended then I have never heard of any such thing. None of the materials received to date from MCLR adherents indicate where the “Constitution” they claim to enforce might be located and read.

[42]           Another example is Robinson’s materials frequently mention that something called the “Constitutional Royal Protocol” has been “invoked”. While that phrase sounds impressive, “Constitutional Royal Protocol” does not appear anywhere in the UK BAILII (www.bailii.org) database that contains hundreds of thousands of reported cases from across the UK and archives all UK legislation. This phrase is also never mentioned in the Australian and New Zealand AustLII (www.austlii.edu.au) and Canadian CanLII (www.canlii.org) court decision and legislation databases. A search of “Google Books” for “Constitutional Royal Protocol” located nothing that related to the UK, the Commonwealth, or Canada. It looks like this phrase was simply made up by the MCLR’s progenitors.

[43]           As a further example I also checked caselaw databases to validate whether any UK, Australian, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, or Canadian court had referenced or applied the “Maxim in law: “Any act done by me against my will is not my act”” (see Appendix “D”). Courts in all those jurisdictions had apparently never heard of this “Maxim”. That is nothing new, as OPCA litigants make up imaginary “Maxims of Law” all the time: e.g. Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 399 at paras 42-50.

[44]           Since the language and terminology used in MCLR documents has at best a tenuous relationship to recognized legal or constitutional concepts I am not going to try to structure my understanding of what these materials claim to do in a “conventional” way, but instead use MCLR adherents’ own frame of reference. I caution the reader that this approach does not necessarily make MCLR claims any more coherent.

[45]           The first step in the MCLR process appears to be that the MCLR adherent swears allegiance to a UK nobleperson pursuant to Article 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215. MHVB’s “Oath of Allegiance” is reproduced in Appendix “H”. Curiously, Article 61 was repealed within a short time from the signing of the original Magna Carta and was not re-introduced in any of the replacement Magna Cartas.

[46]           In any event, this step purportedly changes the MCLR adherent’s “standing in law” via “lawful excuse” so that the MCLR adherent is no longer subject to legislation, courts, police, or government actors who are guilty of “High Treason” for failing to abide by “Constitutional law” and “Common Law”. I note that when OPCA litigants use the term “Common Law” they do not mean accumulated judge-made legal principles that result from court decisions, but instead some kind of obsolete historical past state of law or natural law: Meads at paras 336-340.

[47]           To date all MCLR “Oath of Allegiance” documents have been directed to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire. I suspect Lord Craigmyle was chosen by the instigators of this plan because he was one of the peers in the House of Lords who signed a petition to Queen Elizabeth in 2001 in opposition to the UK’s ratification of the European Union’s [“EU”] Treaty of Nice. That Treaty increased the powers of the EU Parliament over the member nations.

[48]           Twenty-eight peers signed a petition to the Queen asking her to withhold royal assent from any legislation attempting to ratify the Treaty. They invoked Article 61 of the Magna Carta. These peers alleged that the effect of the Treaty of Nice was to surrender the British People’s powers to the EU. Ratifying the Treaty was characterized as an act of treason. These peers declared themselves to be in “lawful rebellion”, acting under the Magna Carta. They alleged that the effect of the Treaty of Nice was to surrender the British People’s powers to the EU. That was characterized as an act of treason. These Lords declared themselves to be in “lawful rebellion”. Nothing came of their revolt and the Treaty of Nice was ratified by the UK.

[49]           I deal with this “rebellion” in greater detail later in this decision. Nothing came of the 2001 rebellion, and the Treaty of Nice was ratified by the UK, with Royal Assent as required.

[50]           I have seen nothing suggesting that Lord Craigmyle was the instigator of the 2001 petition or the instigator of the rebellion. Why he was chosen by the MCLR adherents is a mystery.

[51]           Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire has no connection to the Magna Carta. He is the great- grandson of the first Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, who was a politician and judge. The peerage dates to May, 1929. Lord Craigmyle is not descended from any of the rebel barons from 1215.

[52]           According to a refreshingly candid interview with Lord Craigmyle on YouTube (https://youtu.be/RevKbM1L981), he didn’t know exactly what he was doing when he signed the petition, but thought it might be helpful in the opposition to the Treaty. Since then he has received thousands of letters from people claiming to have sworn an oath to him. He does not know what to do with them. There were at the time, he says, too many to read.

[53]           Documents received by this Court from MCLR adherents do not include any correspondence or instructions from Lord Craigmyle.

[54]           That would be consistent with Lord Craigmyle’s YouTube interview. It is in my view highly unlikely that Lord Craigmyle is the leader of a group of rebels who have sworn allegiance to him. It is highly unlikely that he is aware of what is being done in his name.

[55]           I am reluctant to use YouTube, Google and Wikipedia information as legitimate sources of information. They can be sources of illegitimate information. Internet searches are rife with references to Article 61 and promoting disinformation about it and what may have been its first purported use in 2001. Simply type in “magna carta article 61” and follow the numerous links. It would appear from my research that use of Internet tools is the only way of finding information on cult-like groups such as OPCA adherents. Some of my search results are reported later in this decision. Absent any other information from more conventional sources, I must consider what I have been able to glean.

[56]           The current Lord Craigmyle enjoys no prominence on the Internet and there is nothing indicating that he is seeking followers, or that there is any particular reason to follow him. There is also no indication that he is living a rebellious life free from adherence to any of the laws of the United Kingdom.

[57]           Regardless of any mystery surrounding Lord Craigmyle and his connection with the aftermath of the failed 2001 petition to Her Majesty, a MCLR adherent who has sworn allegiance to Lord Craigmyle then declares their rebellion status by sending a series of documents to court justices, and perhaps other government and state officials. MHVB has so far sent three such documents to Associate Chief Justice Nielsen of this Court:

[58]           Summarizing these documents, the “Notice of Lawful Objection” declares that MHVB is no longer subject to conventional legal authorities because they are traitors and quislings who have subverted the true “Common law”. MHVB instead has sworn allegiance to UK barons who in 2001 invoked the 1215 Magna Carta. This first “Notice” gives the recipient 14 days to object to MHVB’s “declaration” of rebellion or otherwise demands Associate Chief Justice Nielsen join in the revolt.

[59]           The next “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” document gives the Associate Chief Justice an additional ten-day window to acknowledge MHVB’s status and the illegality of Canadian courts. After that any further interference with MHVB, “a living constitutional subject of the Realm of England”, will be illegal and “High Treason”. Perhaps stating the obvious, I note that AVI, MHVB, and Z are not in “the Realm of England”, but in Canada.

[60]           The third “Notice of Default” document in the series announces it is now too late for Associate Chief Justice Nielsen to respond. MHVB’s claims in the “Notice of Lawful Objection” are now established as legal binding fact. Any further action by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench will have criminal law and damages consequences for Associate Chief Justice Nielsen, personally.

[61]           Canadian courts have seen OPCA documents of this general type many, many times over the past 20 years. These are a “Three/Five Letters” scheme, which I will discuss in more detail below. Based on previous experience the Court will now receive one or two more documents that “seal the deal” further and/or (purportedly) impose more obligations and/or penalties on Associate Chief Justice Nielsen.

[62]           I too, personally, am the subject to a “Three/Five Letters” scheme. Mine started with the “Notice of Conditional Acceptance” (Appendix “D”) sent to me by Robinson that essentially declares that, as a Magna Carta rebels, Robinson and MHVB now dictate what the law is in relation to Z. I will be personally responsible unless I prove otherwise. Since I did not reply to Robinson I then also received a “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” document that purports to extinguish the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench’s jurisdiction in relation to Z.

[63]           History reports that in 1215 English landowners, “barons”, rebelled against King John, who was then the monarch of that realm. After negotiations between the two sides on June 10, 1215, King John assented to terms and conditions on his conduct that are known as the Magna Carta of 1215. While that did not end the political scheming in medieval England, and the occasional subsequent civil war, as far as I knew the historic meeting at Runnymede had settled the baron’s complaints vs that monarch.

[64]           I was surprised to learn that had been a revolt of the “barons” in 2001. Some MCLR documents attach as exhibits items that relate to these new rebels, their complaints, and what they did about that.

[65]           First is a document titled “The Barons petition 2001” [sic], which purportedly was “presented under clause 61 of Magna Carta 1215” to Queen Elizabeth II on February 7, 2001. This document complains that the UK’s “national independence” and “ancient rights, freedoms and customs” have been lost and eroded since the UK joined the EU. The document focuses on the 2000 Treaty of Nice, warning that this treaty would cause further “losses of national independence”, would “introduce an alien system of criminal justice”, abolish habeas corpus and jury trials, allow foreign militaries (“men at arms”) into the UK, subvert the UK military’s chain of command, and impose an alien “Charter of Fundamental Rights”. The authors of this “petition” therefore say the Queen ought to withhold Royal Assent to any legislation that ratifies the Treaty of Nice. This document is signed by 28 Peers, including Lord Craigmyle. For convenience I will call these individuals the “new rebel barons”.

[66]           So, in short, “The Barons petition 2001” has a fairly narrow focus. The 28 new rebel barons seek that Queen Elizabeth II block implementation of the Treaty of Nice. I note the 28 new rebel barons have nothing to say about Canada. They have nothing to say about the Commonwealth. This is a political demand, of a kind, by a group of hereditary nobles in the UK, concerning UK governance.

[67]           MCLR documents also include a second document, dated March 23, 2001, purportedly a letter invited by the Queen and addressed to Sir Robin Janvrin, the “Queens Private Secretary” [sic]. This document repeats that the new rebel barons complain that the Treaty of Nice conflicts with the “Constitution of the UK”, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Queen’s Coronation Oath. The new rebel barons expand on the various rights they indicate are being affected or eliminated by enacting the terms of the Treaty of Nice.

[68]           The new rebel barons declare that government ministers who are implementing the Treaty of Nice are already oath-breakers. The writers state the Coronation Oath is a signed contract, and that if the Queen does not block implementation of the Treaty of Nice, then she has breached that contract, and, with that, the UK descends into chaos:

[69]           The letter concludes:

[70]           And that is it, at least as far as the MCLR materials that document how in 2001 the new rebel barons invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta and, purportedly, struck the spark to start a new rebellion so that MCLR adherents may swear allegiance and then ignore treasonous and seditious UK (and Canadian) authorities. But the March 23, 2001 letter to the Queen does not actually say that. The new rebel barons instead declare they are Queen Elizabeth II’s “most loyal and obedient subjects”. The most they seek is to form an advisory committee. Where’s the revolt? The call to arms and resistance?

[71]           Did the new rebel barons in 2001 truly send the UK into constitutional disorder? I think I may take judicial notice that no bands of sworn oathsmen and women headed by the new rebel barons (let alone by Lord Craigmyle as their leader) have been seizing castles and other royal property across the UK over the past nearly 20 years. I am no UK constitutional scholar, but reading the plain text of the materials found in Robinson’s MCLR documents leads me to conclude that the purported baronial rebellion of 2001 was nothing more than political drama, theatre, and showmanship. I have seen nothing in my own research to the contrary.

[72]           Beyond the remarkable alternative history that I have just recounted and a baronial revolt and revolution that apparently no one in the UK has noticed, there are many historical, legal, and logical errors and misconceptions in Robinson’s scheme to escape court, state, and police authority via the Magna Carta. I do not intend to deal with these in great detail but should comment on these fallacies lest they be repeated in other proceedings by other MCLR adherents.

[73]           King John died in 1216 and the rebel barons and King John’s son, Henry III (through his regents) came to a new arrangement: the Magna Carta of 1216. That document eliminated Article 61, such that the Article 61 lawful rebellion process essentially died with King John. Subsequent iterations of the Magna Carta did not include Article 61 or anything like it. Thus, MCLR adherents are relying on a clause that had meaning and legal effect for less than a year, more than 800 years ago.

[74]           Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta said nothing about the rights of ordinary individuals, but instead authorized a counsel of 25 rebel barons to seize all of King John’s “castles, lands, possession, or anything else” if King John did not adhere to the terms of the Magna Carta of 1215. What about rights given to non-barons? Article 61 permits “[a]ny man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons ...” [emphasis added]. That would appear to be obedience to the commands of the elected council, not a single baron.

[75]           Robinson appears to have sworn herself to be a loyal servant to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire. So what? There is no suggestion anywhere that Lord Craigmyle has been elected or appointed to speak for any Article 61 council. There is also nothing to suggest that Lord Craigmyle has “commanded” Robinson to do anything at all, or to do anything in return for her allegiance, let alone that she write to this Court, claiming to represent MHVB, advancing claims that MHVB owns Z as chattel property, and threaten, let alone impose, “the Gallows”. Robinson therefore appears to be rogue servant and Lord Craigmyle should perhaps be concerned about what is being done by her, purportedly under his authority.

[76]           Article 61 of the Magna Carta does not authorize the seizure of an ordinary person’s child. Article 61 is about the King’s “castles, lands, possessions”. In fact, not only does Article 61 not apply to children, it explicitly states it does not apply to the king as a person “... and those of the queen and our children ...”. So, even if Robinson were to travel back in time to 1215, swear her allegiance to baron so-and-so, Robinson would not only have no right to assert a property claim on a child of an ordinary person of that day and time, Robinson also would be explicitly prohibited in relying on Article 61 to interfere with King John’s children.

[77]           Next, Ms. Robinson’s position runs afoul of the fact there have been a succession of Magna Cartas. The one that still is (somewhat) in effect in the UK is the Magna Carta (1297), 1297 C 9 25 Edw 1. This document is considered legislation of the English Parliament. It has 40 clauses. None authorize barons and their sworn minions to seize castles and the like. Worse for the MCLR adherents, all but three Articles of the 1297 Magna Carta have been repealed. Of the remaining Articles, Article 1 recognizes the immunity of the Church of England. Article 9 grants the City of London its “ancient liberties”. Article 29 recognizes the rights of “free-men” shall not be infringed, except by legal processes.

[78]           None of these remaining provisions authorizes Robinson’s demands that, as the representative of MHVB, child Z must be produced as chattel property. In fact, by ignoring Canadian courts and their processes Robinson has instead breached Article 29 and is acting as a vigilante, outside “the laws of the land”. I will, however, not extend this finding of unlawfulness to Lord Craigmyle. There is no evidence he ever asked Robinson to do anything. Lord Craigmyle is simply the unlucky recipient of Ms. Robinson’s “magic” paperwork.

[79]           It appears that Robinson assumes that the 1215 Magna Carta has supraconstitutional status. The 1215 Magna Carta is purportedly the highest law that cannot be challenged, revoked, superseded, etc. There are several problems with that claim.

[80]           First there is the problematic legal foundation on which the MCLR advances this claim. Certain MCLR documents (e.g. Appendix “D”) include this passage - “Magna Carta is as binding upon the Crown today as it was the day it was sealed at Runnymede.” - purportedly quoted from Halsbury’s Laws of England. If that were an actual statement of the law extracted from that august legal resource then this declaration would be a significant factor worthy of consideration. However, that sentence is nowhere to be found in Halsbury’s Laws of England (2018). In fact, the only times “Runnymede” is ever mentioned in Halsbury’s is that several case citations involve the “Runnymede Borough Council”, and that certain land in Runnymede vested with the US pursuant to the John F Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964 C 85.

[81]           I then checked the BAILII database that contains hundreds of thousands of reported cases from across the UK to see if any reproduced this important principle from Halsbury’s. I found exactly nothing. The same happened when I searched the AustLII and CanLII databases.

[82]           Undaunted, I turned to “Google Books” to see if perhaps this mysterious passage had been culled from an older edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England. At last I found a match - not in Halsbury’s - but instead in a book: Ashley Mote, Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty (Petersfield: Tanner, 2001) at 261. Mote provided no citation or source for the “Magna Carta is as binding” passage. Is Mote a legal scholar? No, Mote instead is a former Member of the European Parliament who was convicted and jailed for nearly half a million pounds in false and fraudulent expense claims: “Former MEP Ashley Mote jailed over expenses fraud”, BBC (13 July 2015).

[83]           Given these results I see little explanation other than the “sealed at Runnymede” quote is a complete fabrication. That is not anything new. OPCA litigants fabricate supposed legal principles and findings all the time: e.g. Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213 at paras 41-42, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14; ANB v Hancock at para 93; Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 46-60. At this point I stopped attempting to validate the legal sources and authorities identified in MCLR materials. Whoever concocted these documents appears to take a “make it up as you go” approach to law.

[84]           What is worse for Robinson’s argument is that Commonwealth jurisdiction courts have consistently repudiated the claim that the Magna Carta is anything special. In The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul’s Churchyard Camp Representative), [2012] EWCA Civ 160, the Master of the Rolls specifically rejected the argument that the Magna Carta has extraordinary status:

[85]           The Master of the Rolls continued to confirm that in the UK only Articles 1, 9, and 29 of the 1297 Magna Carta have any legal relevance.

[86]           Outside the UK the Magna Carta is in most instances legally irrelevant, other than as part of legal history. For example, the High Court of Australia in Essenberg v The Queen, B55/1999 [2000] HCATrans 385 (High Court of Australia) ruled:

[87]           Similarly, in Canada notorious Detaxer OPCA guru David Kevin Lindsay argued in R v Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30 at para 18, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 31204 (18 September 2008),  “... the Magna Carta is the foundation of the rule of law itself and that it protects the rights, freedoms, and liberties of all citizens. In [Lindsay’s] submission, the Magna Carta was received in Canada as part of our constitutions ...”.

[88]           Smith JA responded by surveying the numerous Canadian court and academic authorities that conclude that in Canada the Magna Carta is not a constitutional document but, at most, legislation: R v Lindsay, paras 19-22.

[89]           Other Canadian OPCA litigants have advanced variations on this claim that the Magna Carta has extraordinary status. Detaxer guru Eldon Warman declared he is “... a commoner with all applicable common law rights and freedoms, including those rights and freedoms enshrined in the constitutional document, Magna Charta 1215 ...”. The British Columbia Court of Appeal responded that Warman’s claim was:

[90]           Similarly, in Harper v Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 a Freeman-on-the-Land referenced “... the Magna Carta to insulate himself from those portions of Canadian law that he does not like or finds inconvenient. ...”. Justice Foley reviewed the many cases that had already investigated and rejected that the Magna Carta has supraconstitutional status and struck out the Freeman’s lawsuit.

[91]           So that is a further problem with Robinson’s claims. She relies on historic English legislation that was very long ago replaced in that country, and which outside of England has been consistently identified as having no modern legal relevance. She is far from the first OPCA litigant to point to the Magna Carta and make demands. Just like the Detaxers and Freemen who came before her and made the same arguments, Robinson’s Magna Carta pseudolegal demands have absolutely no legal merit. In Canada the 1215 Magna Carta is a historical landmark but with no current legal effect.

[92]           Another problem with the MCLR scheme is that it relies on the UK Royal Coronation Oath operating as a kind of contract. The new rebel barons in their March 23, 2001 letter appear to take the position that if the Queen breaks her Coronation Oath, then that cascades to invalidate oaths all over the UK, and, perhaps, even the Commonwealth too. Once the Queen is a traitor, everyone is a traitor.

[93]           This claim that the Coronation Oath has a keystone function is not a new OPCA concepts. Others have made the same claim, and argued that once the Queen has turned traitor, all social order and organization disappears. For example, Albertan Brenden Randall Rothweiler claimed Queen Elizabeth II breached her contractual oath by:

[94]           I agree with Associate Chief Justice Rooke that Canada does not dissolve into “a post-Elizabethan chaos” because of alleged failures of the Queen in relation to her Coronation Oath.

[95]           Beyond that, Canadian courts have repeatedly concluded the Coronation Oath and its status has no relevance to Canadian authority and law: e.g. Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 399; R v Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99; Potvin (Re); CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310.

[96]           This is a further issue with MCLR theory. Queen Elizabeth II not blocking implementation of the Treaty of Nice is irrelevant to government, police, and court authority in Canada. It probably is irrelevant in the UK, too, but I do not have to decide that issue.

[97]           I am now going to explore an alternative hypothesis. I will accept only for the purposes of argument that when the new rebel barons in 2001 invoked the 1215 Magna Carta and Article 61 by petitioning Queen Elizabeth II that the Queen must refuse to permit any further integration of the UK into the EU - and the Queen did nothing - that this was treason by the Monarch that shattered “English Constitutional law”. I will, hypothetically, presume in these circumstances that all those who cast their lot with the new rebel barons and stood against sedition were not bound to obey treasonous UK authorities, legislation, and courts.

[98]           Well, whatever does that have to do with Canada? Absolutely nothing. Canada is no longer part of the UK constitutional structure. On March 29, 1982 the UK Parliament passed the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11 which terminated any jurisdictional linkage between Canada and the UK. Canada in turn enacted the current The Constitution Act, 1982, our modern Constitution.

[99]           So I will assume that the new rebel barons have (allegedly) shattered “English Constitutional law” when the UK Parliament signed and implemented the Treaty of Nice and then the Queen did nothing. But Canada did not sign that treaty. Canada is not a member of the EU. Furthermore, the new rebellion (allegedly) initiated in 2001 occurred nearly twenty years after Canada’s law and constitution was already split off from the UK. The (alleged) wrongdoing of the UK Parliament and Queen cannot have any effect on Canada. Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11, s 2 says exactly that:

[100]      So, assuming for the moment that in fact the UK does exist in constitutional chaos, and lawful rebels roam its lands directed by a cabal of rebel barons, that would mean absolutely nothing for Canada. We are third parties to this conflict, having split away from the UK nearly four decades ago. I also note that the new rebel barons’ petitions to the Queen say nothing about Canada. Even those new rebel barons do not claim to have taken steps that might affect any nation except the UK.

[101]      I presume this same defect in MCLR theory would exist for other countries in the Commonwealth since none of them are either EU members or signatories to the Treaty of Nice.

[102]      I will engage in a further hypothetical scenario. Once more I will presume that in 2001 the new rebel barons shattered “English Constitutional law”, and that they and their acolytes were at that time then justified in rejecting UK authority in response to the increased integration of the UK into the EU.

[103]      If so, then the new rebel barons have won. The people of the UK rallied to their cause. On June 23, 2016 a majority of UK citizens voted to terminate the UK’s membership in the EU by what is commonly referred to as “Brexit”. The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020.

[104]      If there was a rebellion then it seems to me that the UK has chosen, democratically, to end that in a peaceful way, by the ballot box. Anyone who now says they are lawful rebels by pointing to a conflict that ended in the rebel barons’ favour is fighting a war that is already won. Unless, of course, claiming to be revolting under Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta was merely an OPCA pretense to get things for free, ignore the law and authorities, deny one’s legal obligations, and excuse criminal misconduct.

[105]      There are still more legal errors with Robinson’s claims. The “Notice of Conditional Acceptance” and Robinson’s June 27, 2020 letter to myself explicitly identify Z as MHVB’s chattel property. This type of claim is nothing new. OPCA litigants regularly claim they own their children as property and say they can do with those children however they please: e.g. SS (Re), 2016 ABPC 170; Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018 ABQB 472 at para 25, court access restricted 2017 ABQB 611; DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult), 2018 ABQB 1021 at paras 6-11; CP (Re) at paras 30-31, court access restricted 2019 ABQB 388.

[106]      Any such property claim is wrong. Justice Mandziuk in DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult) at para 11 concluded “... characterizing human beings as property is repugnant to modern Canadian society, values and law.” I agree.

[107]      That is not to say that the historical English common law did not at one time consider minor children to be property, e.g. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in Four Books, 12th ed (London: A Strahan and W Woodfall, 1793) vol 1 at 452-53. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has categorically and emphatically rejected this approach to the status of children: B (R) v Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995 CanLII 115 (SCC), [1995] 1 SCR 315 at 372, 122 DLR (4th) 1; Chamberlain v Surrey School District No 36, 2002 SCC 86 at para 106, [2002] 4 SCR 710; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4 at para 225, [2004] 1 SCR 76.

[108]      Thus, under Canadian law neither MHVB, nor Robinson (illegally) acting on MHVB’s behalf, can claim ownership and demand delivery a four-year old girl as property. Even if this demand were advanced under traditional English common law, that claim would still fail because under that now obsolete legal schema children were the property of the father alone: Blackstone, vol 1 at 452-53.

[109]      This is a further basis why Robinson’s demands to AVI, AVI’s counsel, and the Court are wrong, hopeless, abusive, and beyond that, offensive.

[110]      The OPCA documents that have been received by this Court from Robinson, MHVB, and other MCLR adherents are a very familiar pseudolegal scheme, the “Three/Five Letters” process, that supposedly creates binding outcomes by sending someone a series of documents. At each step a document makes demands or states threats, sets a deadline, and purports that failure to meet those demands or silence means agreement. These documents, “foisted unilateral agreements”, are a common theme in OPCA litigation world-wide: Meads at paras 447-528. However, foisted unilateral agreements are not legally binding because silence does not mean agreement, nor can one unilaterally impose contract obligations on another: Meads at paras 458-472.

[111]      The Three/Five Letters scheme follows a kind of script. Rooke ACJ in Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at para 13 laid out the overall progress of the scheme.

[112]      The Three/Five Letters were introduced into Canada by Freeman-on-the-Land guru Robert Arthur Menard who called this a “Notary Public Protest Method” that creates an “Administrative Judgment”: Donald J Netolitzky, “Humdrum Becomes a Headache: Lawyers Notarizing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Document” (2019) 49:3 Advocates’ Quarterly 279. The Three/Five Letters subsequently spread elsewhere, including to the UK where the Three/Five Letters were used by the dubiously named “Get Out Of Debt Free” OPCA website to purportedly eliminate debts: Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky.

[113]      Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at para 16 lists numerous Canadian cases where OPCA litigants have deployed the Three/Five Letters. It never worked. Associate Chief Justice Rooke concluded at para 21 that this scheme is so notoriously false, and has been rejected so often by Canadian courts, that when someone employs the Three/Five Letters that:

[114]      That presumption applies to both Robinson and MHVB. While Robinson is a third-party interloper in the custody of Z, for MHVB this presumption that results from MHVB relying on illegal OPCA strategies has potentially serious consequences, as I will discuss below.

[115]      In Part IV above I took steps to prevent Robinson from further interfering with AVI, MHVB, and Z. Robinson is a busybody third-party interfering in litigation where she has no legitimate role. Robinson is also using OPCA strategies. That makes her an abusive court actor, and an appropriate target for litigation management steps.

[116]      But as I have also indicated, Robinson’s misconduct extends past that. She appears to be involved in other litigation too. There is a broader pattern where Robinson is involved with multiple MCLR adherents, and appears to be taking a leadership or instructor role.

[117]      Canadian courts have an obligation to deny access to rogue layperson representatives. In R v Dick, the British Columbia Court of Appeal denied an OPCA guru status as a court agent. Acting as a court representative or agent is not right, but a privilege: para 6. “Each court has the responsibility to ensure that persons appearing before it are properly represented ... and to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the court generally.” [emphasis added]: para 7.

[118]      The Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Romanowicz (1999), 1999 CanLII 1315 (ON CA), 138 CCC (3d) 225 (Ont CA) concluded that a person should be barred from operating as a litigation representative if that representation would harm the individual being represented, where representation would interfere with the administration of justice, and if the candidate representative exhibits “... blatant disrespect for the law. ...”: para 74. I think reducing a child to chattel property and threatening judges with “the Gallows” satisfies all those criteria.

[119]      Beyond that, it is well established in Canada that advancing OPCA strategies is a basis to prohibit a person from acting as a litigation representative: R v Dick; Gauthier v Starr; Shannon v The Queen; R v Ciciarelli. What aggravated Robinson’s actions further is her use of abusive concepts and strategies in matters that are far from trivial. MHVB is facing incarceration. Robinson is putting the health and well-being of a child at risk. These are especially critical situations where the implications and consequences of the litigation means the privilege of acting as a court representative ought to be strictly enforced: R v Dick at para 16.

[120]      Robinson’s developing abusive OPCA busybody activities are very troubling. I conclude this is a scenario where the Court should consider whether broader steps are potentially appropriate to minimize the future harm caused by Robinson, and that she may be globally banned from:

[121]      Robinson has until September 30, 2020 to make written submissions and provide affidavit evidence relating to:

[122]      Robinson’s response should be directed to me, personally, as to why I should not generally prohibit Robinson from involving herself in other persons’ legal processes and court proceedings. These written submissions are exempt to the prohibition that I imposed on communicating with the Court in relation to the FL03 55142 Action in Part IV, above.

[123]      AVI and MHVB may make submissions and/or file affidavit evidence in relation to these questions with the same deadline.

[124]      I am also writing this decision to inform MHVB of the potential negative implications of her continuing to rely on Robinson and MCLR theories. First, saying that the Court has no authority over her child directly subverts the Court’s reliance on MHVB to fulfill her responsibilities and legal obligations as a parent of Z. If MHVB does not respect and acknowledge the Court’s authority, that means there is no reason to trust MHVB will follow the Court’s instructions. When that is combined with MHVB’s problematic record that favours MHVB having a much reduced role with Z.

[125]      Second, classifying Z as MVHB’s property that is appropriate to be seized does not create confidence in MHVB fulfilling her parental role in a responsible manner. Her viewing her child as property is disturbing and counter to her role under Canadian law as a guardian and caregiver, whose first duty is the well-being of her daughter.

[126]      Third, Canadian courts have ruled that exhibiting OPCA beliefs is a serious indication that a person is not a fit parent. Espousing OPCA beliefs means that a person is not a suitable to be a child’s guardian or have custody of and access to the child: H v GJ, 2013 BCPC 242 at paras 136-166, MDC v TC, 2012 NBQB 376 at paras 19-20, and Droit de la famille - 123381, 2012 QCCS 6120 at paras 6-8, 12, 111, 227, aff’d 2013 QCCA 725; CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310 at para 35; CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388 at para 34-43.

[127]      In CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388 Thomas J concluded at para 43 that: “... The false, paranoid, and anti-social beliefs that [the OPCA father] now espouses, and his illegal and abusive pseudolegal attempts to defeat Court and legal authority, means he is not a suitable guardian or parent. ...”. MHVB should know her current path has that potential consequence.

[128]      Associate Chief Justice Nielsen has delegated responding to MHVB’s Three/Five Letters to me. MHVB should know these documents provide her no benefit, nor do they have any legal effect, except one. I caution MHVB again that employing the Three/Five Letters process against Associate Chief Justice Nielsen or any other court member, or court employee, or law enforcement, or AVI and AVI’s counsel creates a presumption of bad faith and intent. All this may be relevant if, in the future, the Court considers whether MHVB’s role in Z’s life ought further limited or structured. Beyond that, employing OPCA strategies can have other negative consequences such as court costs, court access restrictions, contempt of court proceedings, and criminal proceedings.

[129]      I very strongly recommend that MHVB consult with a lawyer. If she is unable to afford a lawyer, I recommend MHVB contact a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, the University of Calgary Student Legal Assistance, or Student Legal Services of Edmonton. What happens next is largely in her hands. MHVB at present has some parental role with Z, restricted now by the restraining order imposed as a result of MHVB’s adopting pseudolaw and making unlawful threats. MHVB has a choice to make. I hope her decision is an informed one and that she thinks very carefully about what Robinson has promised, and what now is the result given this decision.

[130]      I have provided detailed reasons in response to Robinson and the MCLR movement because the ideas that circulate in these groups, and their broader paranoid and conspiratorial context, cause real harm to people. As Associate Chief Justice Rooke observed in Unrau #2 at paras 198-199, OPCA litigants are in certain senses victims of their own beliefs:

[131]      Courts should provide a substantive response to pseudolegal claims: Meads at para 636; Colin McRoberts, “Tinfoil Hats and Powdered Wigs: Thoughts on Pseudolaw” (2019) 58:3 Washburn LJ 637 at 664-669. That is what I have tried to do here. MHVB now has a basis to critically test and evaluate what Robinson is doing, purportedly on her behalf. I hope she does so. MHVB might also ask why Robinson was convicted in Provincial Court, despite Robinson having sworn an Oath to Lord Craigmyle.

[132]      The Court will draft and serve the Order that flows from this decision. Approval of that Order is dispensed with per Rule 9.4(2)(c). Both Robinson and MHVB have only provided a post office box address in Carbon, Alberta (P.O. Box 445, Carbon, Alberta, T0M 0L0) for response to their foisted unilateral agreements. I order that service of this Decision and its corresponding Order, and any argument and/or affidavit evidence pursuant to para 123 is deemed to have been satisfied one week after any document is posted to that address.

[133]      It appears that Robinson is engaged in an unauthorized practice of law. A copy of this decision will be forwarded to the Law Society of Alberta for its attention and response.

[134]      I am also taking the perhaps unusual step of directing a copy of this decision to the “Lord Craigmyle” who is the figurehead identified by the MCLR movement. It appears the current “Baron Craigmyle” is Thomas Columba Shaw: Who’s Who (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). By sending Baron Craigmyle this decision I am not purporting to impose any obligation on him. Nevertheless, I think he should know that the hundreds, if not thousands of Oaths of Allegiance that he is receiving are part of an organized campaign of deception and disinformation.

[135]      The individuals who send him these documents are people with real problems. They are taking illegal actions purportedly relying on the paperwork they send to him. 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.

[136]      Another point that Baron Shaw may not know is that the people who send him these documents have a major misapprehension about what it means when he says nothing and does nothing. They believe silence means agreement - and they act on that. As I indicated, I am not telling Baron Shaw what to do. However, if it were me, and I were to become aware of what is occurring purportedly in my name, I would at a minimum reject and return to sender any Oath of Allegiance that appears by registered mail and with my name (or title) on it.