PLD Get's It's Ass Handed To It At Alberta's Queen's Bench

[Burnaby49]

I have some social advice for eric. In a different thread he wrote;

Anyways of particular interest to myself is the return address on her letter. Previously she had plans to create a "PLD Farm" up around Bowden in Alberta. I have noticed she has now moved to literally within a few minutes drive of myself. A pretty little village, I know or have worked with a dozen or so of the residents and there is a distinct possibility I may run into her since she probably does much of her personal business where I do. Damn, now I have to watch out for purple haired women wearing cowboy hats.

Well eric, I'm here to help with these awkward encounters. If you do run across our purple-haired PLD leader at your local gas station or Tim Horton's I can provide you with some topics of conversation to break the ice and get acquainted, just some light chit-chat about her very recent savage mauling at the hands of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. Jacquie Robinson (aka Jacquie Phoenix) made the disastrous blunder of deciding to play in the big league. She filed a batch of her Practical Lawful Dissent gibberish at ALQB as part of the "legal arguments" in two currently ongoing court cases, one a criminal trial the other a divorce proceeding. She "represented" the same party in both. The result is a 36 page judicial shitkicking, brutal by even ALQB standards. The decision itself is 22 pages, the remaining 14 pages are appendix giving examples of the PLD documents Robinson filed with the court.

The issue at court in both cases was a child custody fight involving a "high-conflict family law dispute". The parties are a mother (MHVB), father (AVI) and a four year old daughter (Z). An interim court order in 2016 gave AVI guardianship of Z and granted MHVB shared parenting time. In 2019 MHVB took Z and ran off to the United States. Z was returned to Canada as a result of the assistance of US authorities and MHVB is currently facing criminal charges for abducting her daughter. While that process was ongoing the court is allowing MHVB only supervised parenting time with her daughter. So MHVB, seeing that fighting with real law wasn't getting her anywhere, fired her lawyer and retained Jacquie Robinson instead. Which resulted in AVI's lawyer getting a bill for $50,000 per day until MHVB's property was returned (said property being Z) and this steaming pile of PLD gibberish dumped on the court;

Dear Robert A Graesser (Note - the judge)

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 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 Queen'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 the 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 as 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.

Maxim in Law Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse

The court responded with this decision;

https://t.co/JTADOSWcp2?amp=1

The decision isn't up on CANLii yet but the link is second best, from the ALQB website.

The judge doesn't seem happy about being told that he's a few very short paces away from the gibbet;

[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:

1. all correspondence from Robinson directed to AVI and AVI’s counsel that has been received by the Court, specifically:

- “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” to AVI’s counsel, dated July 26, 2020; and
Page: 7

- “Notice of Implied Rights of Access” to “All Crown Agents”, undated;

2. all correspondence from MHVB received by Associate Chief Justice Nielsen, specifically:

- “Notice of Lawful Objection & Declaration of Standing in Law”, dated July 5, 2020 (Appendix “A”);
- “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”, dated July 20, 2020 (Appendix “B”); and
- “Notice of Default”, dated August 5, 2020 (Appendix “C”); and

3. all correspondence received by myself from Robinson, specifically:

- the June 27, 2020 package; and
- “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”, dated July 26, 2020 and an undated “Removal of Implied Rights of Access”.

[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:

1. shall immediately cease purporting to represent MHVB in any capacity;

2. is prohibited from filing, preparing, witnessing, or otherwise formalizing any documents in relation to docket FL03 55142;

3. shall not communicate with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in any way in relation to docket FL03 55142, except as indicated below in paragraphs 121-122; and

4. Robinson shall only communicate with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench using the name “Jacqueline Robinson”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym, including the FL03 55142 Action and the docket 2003 12007 restraining order proceeding against 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.

The court declared Jacquie to be a "busybody"? Look in the mirror judge, look in the mirror. It's not enough that the court tears Jacquie a new one; it also decided to arbitrarily rename her movement, replacing the time-honoured PLD brand with MCLR (Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion). What next, will the court turn MCMUFFIN into a legal acronym?

[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”.

That's not the first time Queen's Bench has meddled with nomenclature. Back in 2012 Dennis Meads was happily playing about trying to screw his separated wife regarding the terms of their divorce settlement by filing absolutely standard sovereign gibberish at Queen's Bench. Just trying it on for size. Queen's Bench responded by hitting him across the head with a 736 paragraph, 176 page decision and a brand new moniker, invented just for him, calling him an OPCA litigant (Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument). The first ever useage of that term.

Anyhow, in this decision, the judge spent paragraphs 39 to 44 explaining how Jacquie pulled all of her legal sounding terminology out of her ass. Then paragraphs 57 to 62 detail the batch of documents that Jacquie sent the court that resulted in the decision;

[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:

1. “Notice of Lawful Objection & Declaratation of Standing in Law” dated July 5, 2020 (Appendix “A”);
2. “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” dated July 20, 2020 (Appendix “B”); and
3. “Notice of Default” dated August 5, 2020 (Appendix “C”).

[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.

But the PLD scheme doesn't work without one of Lenin's "useful idiots". They need a compliant baron willing to give his blessings to a lawful rebellion. So who's the designated fool?

Going back to this statement;

Dear Robert A Graesser

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 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 Queen'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 the enclosed Exhibit: G in the notice of Conditional Acceptance.

What happened on March 23rd, 2001 that triggered MHVB's right to invoke Article 61?

At paragraph 63 to 71 the judge related the story of history's only baronial invocation of an Article 61 Magna Carta lawful rebellion, a very polite, deferential letter sent to the Queen in 2001 protesting Britain's planned signing of the Treaty of Nice. Twenty-eight rebellious and legitimate, honest-to-God barons signed it including Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire (spoiler - our useful idiot, more on him later). And how did this massive Article 61 rebellion against the Crown work out?

[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:

The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional - an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny.

[69] The letter concludes:

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others - have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops ... until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects."

[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.

Not as impressive as one would expect from a rebellion against the Crown by of peers of the realm. Not a single hanging, drawing and quartering between them all. One would have expected, at a minimum, at least a few heads stuck on pikes outside the gate of the Tower of London. There are no standards anymore.

Paragraphs 72 to 109 go into chapter and verse how Jacqueline is totally clueless about the legal standing and effect of the real Magna Carta Article 61 as opposed to the alternate fantasy Article 61 that she and the British PLD morons have invented to justify their freeloading proclivities. I won't go into detail about the court's analysis, the entire decision is worth your personal review without being run through my biased interpretative filter. However, I have to be fair about recognizing Jacquie's formidable legal expertise. I'm the first to admit she's possibly Canada's greatest authority in respect to the interpretation of the fantasy Article 61. Unfortunately for Jacquie ALQB is doggedly fixated on real law and just doesn't have the imagination or flexibility to explore the realms of fantasy law.

So eric, I'd suggest if you do end up behind Ms. Robinson at the local Timmy's lineup you could lead off with these comments from Queen's Bench, they should start an animated discussion;

[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.

[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.

A vigilante rogue servant! Naughty, naughty! We'll be into whips and chains next!

Paragraphs 110 to 114 just go over well trodden grounds and review the history and legal relevance of the three/five letter process. It's a bit of a disappointment to find that, at heart, even an exciting new visionary idea like Lawful Rebellion relies on such an old, tired, worn out concept. The five letter scheme was discredited in Canada's courts a decade ago. Actually almost all sovereign schemes I've reviewed seem, in the end, to rely on new iterations of the five letter scheme. As my mother use to say, just mutton dressed up as lamb.

Anyhow the court ends it's discussion of Jacquie's actions with this;

[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:

1. providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than herself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any Alberta court, except on her own behalf; and

2. acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representation in court proceedings.

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

1. whether Robinson should be restricted in relation to Alberta legal processes and court proceedings, and

2. if so, what ought to be the appropriate steps.

[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.

Time for a little mention of our royal fool. The entire basis of the PLD scheme is reliant on its adherents swearing an oath to a British baron. Jacquie chose to bestow this honour on Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire thereby allowing her to wield his incredible baronial authority to bring down the government and court systems of Canada. So who is he? He's this totally clueless British twit;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RevKbM1L98I

He seems to be as skeptical of his purported powers and authority as I am. The court had a few words about Lord Craigmyle's involvement in, and knowledge of, PLD in the decision.

[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 (Note - cited link doesn't work), 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.

Paragraphs 134 to 136 of the decision are, unusually, directed to Lord Craigmyle, an individual with no legal connection to this litigation, They advise him that perhaps he should make some effort to stop all this idiocy promulgated in his name. However the judge plans to do so by sending him a copy of the decision and Lord Craigmyle seems, how do I put this, a little too dim to actually go through it and understand the legal analysis.

Overall I got the feeling that the judge was enjoying playing with Ms. Robinson. How else to explain section headings like this?

6. One Oath to Bind Them All

One last point. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of the decision give a brief history of "pseudolaw" in Canada. And what is the source of the information that serves as the basis of this scholarly analysis? None other than our own contributor Donald Netolitzky and his numerous papers on the topic! Citations galore from papers Donald has shared on Quatloos. You read it here first!

[longdog]

Wow!

Now I am not a lawyer, except of the barrack room type of course, but to my mind when a judge uses the expression "So what?" in the way he used it I translate it as "Are you fucking mental?"

[hucknallred]

Excellent write up as ever, a loyal band of UK freedom fighters observe her shenanigans over on Facebook much to our shared amusement. I can see a few of these quotes going her way on there. I'll see how she's spun this on her echo chamber & report back.

[Philistine]

Thanks again Burnaby49.
It's such a shame that our stalwart heroine Jacquie has been returned to the ashes so handily.
I'm looking forward to her idiot adherents responses.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks again Burnaby49.
It's such a shame that our stalwart heroine Jacquie has been returned to the ashes so handily.
I'm looking forward to her idiot adherents responses.

Thanks. Unusually, for my write-ups, I wasn't clear when I posted it how coherent or well-sequenced it was. I started writing it up after midnight and stopped about 2:30 to stagger off to bed. However, as I wrote, anyone wanting to review it unfiltered by my biases and selective winnowing can read the decision for themselves. Helpfully, as an aid in that, it's just been released on CANLii, my preferred venue;

AVI v MHVB,
2020 ABQB 489
http://canlii.ca/t/j9c1p

Pretty damn quick for a decision just released on Wednesday.

[eric]

Just a few odd notes.....

Well eric, I'm here to help with these awkward encounters. If you do run across our purple-haired PLD leader at your local gas station or Tim Horton's I can provide you with some topics of conversation to break the ice and get acquainted, just some light chit-chat about her very recent savage mauling at the hands of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

Sorry, no Timmie's around here. We're in a bit of a rural backwater and her village is a poster child for that - It's off the highway, no real reason to drive through, and sits at the bottom of a deep valley with steep sides. It does however rate a curling rink/indoor archery range/lunch counter combination going by the name of Old Ha'igs that sounds interesting.
The learned judge is obviously from the city:

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.

In rural Alberta Canada Post has a strict requirement that all mailing addresses must be by post office box only. Even my driver's licence just has my po box on it for address. I worked the last election where voters had to prove their physical address and at times we resorted to having voters get neighbours or family to text pictures of their house with their county address sign to us since they would often have no id with their "real" address on it.

Excellent write up as ever, a loyal band of UK freedom fighters observe her shenanigans over on Facebook much to our shared amusement. I can see a few of these quotes going her way on there. I'll see how she's spun this on her echo chamber & report back.

Since her Facebook group has a requirement that all posts have to be pre-approved by moderators I can see this being ignored or spun as a tactical defeat but a strategic victory. That traffic offence:

Similarly her eviction from her apartment in Calgary was a victory as well. Here she is using her strawman to pay her rent:

and then getting served her eviction notice (I love the process server's attitude btw):

and finally the day of reckoning: (she got the boot but didn't get arrested so she won):

edit to add: I will be posting about another resounding defeat for our purple-haired rebel that actually resulted in jail time for a user of her methods over in the main PLD thread. I just have to wait for our local liquor store and pharmacy (don't ask) to open so I can purchase a bottle of rum since it is pirate themed..

[Burnaby49]

No Timmies? No diabetic coma inducing baked goods? I had no idea about the depth of the primitive conditions that exist in Alberta! Next you'll be telling us that the nearest McDonalds is more than an hours drive away!

Since her Facebook group has a requirement that all posts have to be pre-approved by moderators I can see this being ignored or spun as a tactical defeat but a strategic victory.

like Custer's strategic victory but tactical setback at Greasy Grass? If her followers want to live in the PLD bubble regardless of the consequences that's fine by me, the information is out there if they bother to look. They'll get the same dose of reality that Jacquie was just forced to swallow if they try to file their gibberish in any Canadian court. I'm guessing this decision will be cited in any future court cases involving a party relying on Jacquie's PLD idiocy.

One point I neglected to emphasize when noting the wheezing geriatric theoretical underpinnings of the PLD movement was it's very heavy reliance on the strawman concept, an old, old acquaintance at Queen's Bench. it makes the five letter scheme seem like a babe in arms. I believe the strawman first revealed itself in the United States in the early 1990's and has an unbeaten court record of 100% losses ever since. Virtually every predecessor Canadian sovereign scam relied on it. So Jacquie's at least relying on a tried and true classic.

[Burnaby49]

As an example of undetected mistakes I just noticed this;

The court declared Jacquie to be a "busybody"? Look in the mirror judge, look in the mirror. It's not enough that the court tears Jacquie a new one; it also decided to arbitrarily rename her movement, replacing the time-honoured PLD brand with MCLD (Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion). What next, MCMUFFIN?

I of course meant "MCLR (Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion)". However, while a moderator, I've somehow lost the ability to moderate my own postings so the error stands.

[eric]

No Timmies? No diabetic coma inducing baked goods? I had no idea about the depth of the primitive conditions that exist in Alberta! Next you'll be telling us that the nearest McDonalds is more than an hours drive away!

Not quite that bad... the closest chain restaurants are a mere 3/4 hour drive from us. Besides the sugary confection of choice around here is a cinnamon "bun" complete with a sickly sweet icing, approximately the size of a dinner plate, topped off with a mediocre coffee with the addition of some sort of flavored sweet syrup. Only available from local bakeries.

Since her Facebook group has a requirement that all posts have to be pre-approved by moderators I can see this being ignored or spun as a tactical defeat but a strategic victory.

like Custer's strategic victory but tactical setback at Greasy Grass? If her followers want to live in the PLD bubble regardless of the consequences that's fine by me, the information is out there if they bother to look. They'll get the same dose of reality that Jacquie was just forced to swallow if they try to file their gibberish in any Canadian court. I'm guessing this decision will be cited in any future court cases involving a party relying on Jacquie's PLD idiocy.

As I indicated in the clip of Jacquie with the glass of wine, defeats are only temporary setbacks. She is crowing about the fact that she received a letter from the Alberta courts that indicated a particular office in the system may have a different physical address than their mailing address. This is an admission of treachery and malfeasance on their part and therefore the full weight of medieval punishment as common in 1261 can therefore be applied - her letter in regards to this was mentioned in my last post over in the main PLD threat.

[TBL]

This is absolutely riveting. So many of these morons Icarus-ed long before I found this board. It's like "The Young and the Stupid" or "General Rebellion" for daytime YouTube TV.

[Burnaby49]

Even though you're late to the game chance has given you a shot at watching the pitiful remnants of the sovereign movement self-destruct in real time. I was there for the glory days of Menard, Dean Clifford, and Chief Rock while they were still riding high.

[Burnaby49]

I just got around to checking out that video. If that's wine she's guzzling that's a honkin' big glass of the stuff! I'm not man enough to tackle that. Then again I don't have the historic victories to celebrate that she does.

"This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are terrified, terrified, terrified of our notices". Can't argue that, the abject fear that has paralyzed the authorities as a result of Jacquie's PLD onslaught came across loud and clear in the court decision. Time to erect the gibbet!

[eric]

I just got around to checking out that video. If that's wine she's guzzling that's a honkin' big glass of the stuff! I'm not man enough to tackle that. Then again I don't have the historic victories to celebrate that she does.

You are showing your lack of expertise with respect to cheap alcohol. It appears to me to be Arbor Mist. It comes in multiple sweet flavours claimed to be from different fruits and in garish colours. Cheaper than dirt and targeted at students who want to get their girlfriend drunk. Does the phrase "pantie remover" not bring back any memories? Hint: pour it into another container and add a mickey of cheap vodka for optimum results.

[Burnaby49]

I gladly defer to your expertise in this area. The last time I can recall drinking anything so garish and approaching your overall description was when I used to imbibe Prince of Denmark cherry wine in the late 1960's. Although, to be fair to wine, I doubt the word had any relevance to the swill in the bottle. A vile artificially flavoured and very sweet semi-fluorescent liquid. But, as with your Arbor Mist, cheap and it got the job done. But, again, main comment stands, I'm not man enough for whatever was in that glass in the volumes she's obviously consuming it. she seems to have downed a couple of victory toasts before doing the video.

Here's recent review of what sounds like the garbage I drank. The description certainly matches what's burned into my memory. Except for the cork. We had screw-tops. And I'd forgotten about the smell, an overpowering wave of chemically created cherry to accompany the very unsubtle taste;

Questions about Prince of Denmark Cherry Wine

I gave my drunk friends a ride home today, and they told me to take something from the pantry for my trouble (I've done this for them before, and ended up with an excellent bottle of 20 year old Charter Oak bourbon).

Anyway, out of curiosity I grabbed a bottle of Prince of Denmark Cherry wine. It was bottled at 17% abv, and the label advertises that it won gold medals at a wine tasting in 1968. so I assume it was bottled around then.

Is there any chance this wine is still drinkable? Does anyone know anything about the stuff?

If it helps the stuff was imported by James Moroney Inc., Philadelphia, PA, and bottled by Svendborg Vinkompagni.

If no one can tell me anything about this specific wine, can someone at least tell me some guidelines about how ~50 year old wines tend to hold up if they're still sealed and stored properly?

Thank you in advance.

edit: I've found a few comments on forums about this wine, and it seems to be very shitty, but any input would still be appreciated.

edit 2: I just tried it, and I would strongly recommend it if you live under an overpass and Thunderbird, MD 20/20, or Night Train is unavailable. The most sickly sweet stuff I have ever tasted. It smells especially disgusting, and tastes like it will be giving me a two day hangover. I will report back on that.

edit 3: This stuff is NyQuil with a cork. I finished off all but the dregs of the bottle, fell asleep sitting up, and slept through five missed calls with my phone right next to me. Surprisingly no ill effects this morning other than a bad taste in my mouth.

A cursory search tells me that what you have used to be a cheap, sweet party drink from back in the day. I'd wager that it's not drinkable now and that it probably never was. But you might as well try it. It can't hurt you.

If you think there's a chance that you grabbed something that is worth money, sorry, but no.

[The Observer]

Well, this thread has caused a great deal of anger to stir inside me. So I have one blunt question to ask:

Does the Canadian judicial system care one little iota about Quatloos?

The reason I ask this question is that all of you have failed to notice the consequences of the Queens' Bench efficient stomping of freemen/sovrun into the dust and destroying whatever faux credibility they had among the few followers they were able to attract. And what are those consequences? WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF MATERIAL FOR QUATLOOSIAN CONSUMPTION.

It used to be that we had Burnaby burning the midnight oil several nights a week as he feverishly tried to work out of the backlog of cases that had piled up at those beaver lodges they call courtrooms (though I do note that they insist that one must wear pants while inside). There was so much work for Burnaby to do, sadly he didn't even have time to think about boozing. He worked his fingers to the nub as he pounded on a keyboard that he could barely see through his cataract-laden lenses. But he was gainfully engaged; his wife did not have to worry about what sort of mischief he was getting into on the streets of Vancouver. And we had things to read, discuss, analyze and dissect!

But now, we are sitting here, grasping at the least bit of chaff that the courts condescendingly toss out - and being grateful for it. Five years ago, a rinky-dink PLD case would have been dessert on the Burnaby serving cart. "Hah!", we would have said to Burnaby, "you think we are going to let you get by with submitting that dreck? Get us a real sovrun case!" Now we are slavering over it like starving cannibals over the last fingernail of their victim. And we will have to wait weeks - no, months is more like it - for another such case. Do you think that any of these Canadian justices have taken into consideration our situation? No, they think that they have bigger fish to fry in their docket. And it won't do any good to try to get their attention on the matter; after all they will just sniff that they need to deal with real legal cases where there is actually logical arguments, facts, supporting case law, precedents and all of that legal stuff that never pollutes a sovrun case.

[Burnaby49]

Weeks, months? Try years, probably never, before we see even one lousy sovereign guru again that comes close to matching the legends of old. I recall when I'd be trying to deal with three trials simultaneously and had to make hard decisions about which hearings to attend. Now I fitfully pick away at the carcasses of defeated schemes in the hinterlands.

And you've picked the wrong target for your wrath. The courts are in the same position that we are. They can only work with whatever scraps are provided to them. it's up to the sovereigns to provide new material for us to work with and, sadly, after just a decade or two of total defeat, they've lost the heart to continue. Just pathetic quitters who have left Quatloos in the lurch. Robert Menard, once a giant, is currently flogging his home-made hot sauce! Strong smoky flavour, fruit highlights, chose your level of heat tolerance. In that light we can only thank Ms. Robinson for her sterling efforts, as derivative and shop-worn as they are.

[eric]

I beg to differ. Although the old school Canadian FMOTL types have gone dormant, as the good Doctor N has mentioned, there are still plenty of targets. With regard to the PLD adherents I have a pirate who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory who I need to write up, plus a couple of people who will be living minus all utilities, including water service, who are too minor to be worth my interest. On the Dallas Hills front, I need to investigate a family who managed to literally lose their farm, along with a fine in excess of 1 M$. If I was really feeling up to it, there is a get together of Alberta adherents of Dallas Hills right wing brand of OPCA adherents this weekend literally 15 minutes away from me. It is supposed to include a pig roast and appropriate libations. I match their demographics (rural, older, white, conservative) but the only issue is if I can grow enough facial hair in 48 hours to fit in.

[Pottapaug1938]

I just got around to checking out that video. If that's wine she's guzzling that's a honkin' big glass of the stuff! I'm not man enough to tackle that. Then again I don't have the historic victories to celebrate that she does.

You are showing your lack of expertise with respect to cheap alcohol. It appears to me to be Arbor Mist. It comes in multiple sweet flavours claimed to be from different fruits and in garish colours. Cheaper than dirt and targeted at students who want to get their girlfriend drunk. Does the phrase "pantie remover" not bring back any memories? Hint: pour it into another container and add a mickey of cheap vodka for optimum results.

I've been north of The Border enough to know what a "mickey" is, up there; but for the South Of The Border people (SOBs) who aren't familiar with a term, a "mickey" is a 375ml (we're metric, remember) bottle of alcohol of your chosen variety.

I'm more into two-fours, from the right craft brewery.

[eric]

The whole thing about "wines" such as Arbor Mist is that they are very cheap, go down easy, and taste more like a fruit punch than an alcoholic drink - they're only 6% alcohol. Knocking back a bottle of it feels no worse than drinking a few beer, hence the desire to amp them up with something else.

[eric]

And here we go about Jacquie:
https://nationalpost.com/news/alberta-j ... -authority
and an article by our own that I haven't even had a chance to read yet:
https://www.albertalawreview.com/index. ... /2593/2553