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

[Burnaby49]

Welcome aboard mikethrow!

The first thing I did when finding the group was go and learn about the topic, which means learning how and why it's invalid. Then I did my best to speak helpfully and calmly to Jacquie about the ways that it's all untrue - why she is wasting her time. I tried to be informative, respectful, and had the overall message that.. I want to try to help her from getting deeper into this. As I recall, I was armed with examples of similar attempts to "invoke" this shit in Alberta and maybe Saskatchewan/BC courts, don't recall exactly. That discussion was of course futile, a bit naive on my part admittedly, and ended with her saying, and I quote, "I’m fine Article 61 changed my life for the better, I am not free and I couldn’t be happier". Beautiful to revisit today.

It's totally pointless to try and convince them they're wrong. This was never an issue of legal interpretation. If it was it would never have gotten off the ground. An obscure, very minor British royal has the power, by saying some magic words, to give a purple-haired loon in Canada the right to shut down all of Canada's court systems and governments? Just reading that last sentence, even without any legal understanding of the issues, shows how idiotic the whole idea is. Yet Jacquie and her followers are completely invested in it and believe it entirely. It comes down to a question of faith rather than facts or knowledge, in all essentials a religion. However religions don't have to defend their credibility at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

[mikethrow]

Welcome to the Q!
You seem to perhaps have been sucked in by this previously and got out? If so, even more so, welcome, and congratulations on being one of the very few.

Thank you. Fortunately no, I am not a person who has fallen for this stuff. Frankly I'm not even sure how I came across it, but it coincided with my decision to delve into the alt-right on Facebook in an attempt to observe, learn and educate myself about a year ago. As I'm sure you know, there's a kind of cross-contamination where all these various niche conspiracies tend to mingle nowadays and find each other online, and there's lots of crossover.

I was able to learn and recognize the futility of trying to change these peoples' minds early on, but struggled at times to ignore the drama - because as smart as we are, as wise as we may be, we are not immune to the pull, the dopamine rushes and psychology that social media and Facebook take advantage of. But that's been a useful learning experience as well. I am in my mid 30's, so I consider myself to be part of this generation that sort of.. saw the genesis of social media, thought it was great, but then also got to be the first to start to uncover its toxic effects.

To me, it has been more just sad and pitiful to see how many of these adults may never come around to those truths, and how many have decided to permanently dig in on believing these fantasies. In my own odd way, I am a kind-hearted person whose ideal outcome would be to see some of these people come to their senses. But I will stay realistic with those expectations.

Yet Jacquie and her followers are completely invested in it and believe it entirely. It comes down to a question of faith rather than facts or knowledge, in all essentials a religion. However religions don't have to defend their credibility at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

Whole post is well said. Yeah, I mean I know there's no way to get this message through, but... frankly I feel the biggest skill these people have is usually just... how to debate confidently. Forget if they're right or accurate or even make sense, forget their points being consistent, they just want to have a rebuttal to every possible fact. It really does just feel like Shitty Debate Club sometimes, fundamentally.

[JJonesCo]

Genuine question; although it might not seem that way responding on an OPCAs post , it's the 'human rights' in searchbar that got me here.
Why must one be a subject of Canadian law? or any law for that matter.
A client recently asked and I feel I fabricated the answer, it does beg the question; why must someone be part of our society if they don't like the rules? and where can they go if they don't?
Liddle me this. (liddle was a term we used in school to rebut a legal conundrum or riddle of course)

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, I'm a SOB (South Of the Border) guy; but when I am in Canada, I am subject to Canadian law just by being bodily present within the territory of Canada. If I don't want to be subject to Canadian law, I can simply stay in the United States, or turn around and go back there, after having entered Canada.

The same thing applies for being in the United States, although being an American citizen binds me to observe certain laws which don't apply to foreign nationals. If I don't want to be subject to American laws, the remedy is simple -- find another country which will take me in, and renounce my American citizenship.

[The Observer]

[F]ind another country which will take me in, and renounce my American citizenship.

But that is the step that our sovruns never seem to be willing to take. No matter how much they scream about tyranny, injustice, judicial corruption, and the like, they always want to stay right here in oppression - and then take handouts from the government whenever they can get it.

[eric]

I think the whole thing about the Magna Carta people is that the PLD group stresses when pushed is that they are simply registering the fact that they disagree with certain laws and sometime or another they will achieve sufficient group momentum to actually do something about it. In other words, so long as you follow their basic tenets of don't hurt other people, don't steal, etc., you can register your discontent with any other laws that you disagree with.
A further expansion on this: Jacquie Pheonix (aka the purple haired princess) as I have previously mentioned, does not want to pay her rent or buy a new licence sticker for her vehicle. However, since the rule of "do no harm" in her view also means "do no harm to yourself" she doesn't want to complain about the fact that she is on AISH. Interesting conflict here. Once a year I stop off at the local registry office, show my proof of insurance and ownership of my vehicles, pay a sum of money, and receive my new stickers in a flash. If you're on AISH however you must consent to intrusive and annoying government monitoring on a monthly basis of your personal household circumstances, finances, and medical status. Side note, this being Alberta, all of this is carried out by fax and sitting on hold for hours on the phone. We put up with it since it saves my wife substantial prescription costs and replaces some, but not all, of her previous income.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

[F]ind another country which will take me in, and renounce my American citizenship.

But that is the step that our sovruns never seem to be willing to take.

Apart that is from Gavin Seim who fled the US to Mexico after being told by a court that he had to unlock his phone. Rather than fight it to the Supreme Court (where IMHO he would have had a fair crack at winning) he fled over the border, applied for refugee status and is now running a coffee shop that doesn't appear to have any customers financed by daddy Seim's cash and spends his day antagonising the locals for wearing masks.

(For more on this boring story, you'll need to take a trip to Fogbow).

[noblepa]

Genuine question; although it might not seem that way responding on an OPCAs post , it's the 'human rights' in searchbar that got me here.
Why must one be a subject of Canadian law? or any law for that matter.
A client recently asked and I feel I fabricated the answer, it does beg the question; why must someone be part of our society if they don't like the rules? and where can they go if they don't?
Liddle me this. (liddle was a term we used in school to rebut a legal conundrum or riddle of course)

I suspect that this is yet another in a long line of drive-by questions, but for the moment, I will take JJones at his word and treat it as a genuine question.

He is not asking how to avoid being subject to law. He is asking a more philosophical question of "Why?".

We have laws in order to set boundaries for human behavior. Without laws, the strongest would domineer the weakest. If someone wants something I have, they simply take it, if they can. If I object too strenuously, they kill me. Without laws, such actions would be acceptable, or at least unpreventable and unpunishable.

And, before you say that we could depend on the self-restraint of good people or religious commandments, I would just say that those are simply laws in another form. Statutory laws, passed by a legitimate legislative body, are not the only form of laws there are. There are religious laws, such as the Ten Commandments; church laws, such as Papal bulls put forth by religious leaders; Royal edicts, handed out by Sovereign kings or queens. The same question, "Why?" could be asked about any of those laws, as well. I submit that the answer is much the same.

Laws are an attempt by society, as a whole, to make life more safe and predictable. Safe, because I can not be killed or my possessions stolen with impunity. Predictable, because, in broad terms, I know what to expect from my fellow humans.

[Burnaby49]

I suspect that this is yet another in a long line of drive-by questions, but for the moment, I will take JJones at his word and treat it as a genuine question.

Exactly why I didn't bother trying to answer it. It's been my experience on this board that these vague, open-ended questions generally seem to be just bait by trolls.

[Burnaby49]

It's heading towards two weeks since Jacquie's last boisterous, defiant video challenging Richard Warman to bring it on and nothing, not a word from her since, either on Face Book or YouTube. Perhaps his immediate response after she released the video, filing a criminal complaint against her has finally beaten at least a trivial amount of sense into her head, perhaps just enough to trigger some badly needed caution.

[eric]

I'm sorry to dash your hopes but she's back again on Facebook. Nothing particularly exciting and nothing to do with her issues with the Alberta courts however.

[grixit]

Has the entire sov community forgotten that if you can't get your way at the Queen's Bench, you're supposed to put on your shining armor and go on a quest to find the King's Bench?

[Burnaby49]

Has the entire sov community forgotten that if you can't get your way at the Queen's Bench, you're supposed to put on your shining armor and go on a quest to find the King's Bench?

Unfortunately for the sovs you can't find the King's Bench, it has to find you. And it will if they are just patient. Once Elizabeth has finished hogging way more than her fair share of the royalty pipeline (68 years1) her successor will be a male, either Charles, if he can hold out, or his son William. At that time the name of the court will be changed to King's Bench.

[Burnaby49]

Jacquie's back and swinging! Her Face Book page has this;

Jacquie Phoenix 8h ·

If you WORK in HEALTH CARE and do this to a child ANY child ESPECIALLY an Infant. Just know that this is a VIOLATION of HUMAN RIGHTS, CHILD ABUSE and a CRIME.

This is High Treason, still punishable by full asset stripping and the Gallows ! Is your JOB worth YOUR Life ?

Article 61 is the Highest Constitutional Law ever written and the ONLY Law in effect throughout the Commonwealth Realm !

Article 61 deals SPECIFICALLY with the CRIME of TREASON !

We the People of the Commonwealth Realm do NOT CONSENT and we are coming for you !

Practical Lawful Dissent !

Stop the madness or EXPECT to be put on Notice of Treason and be PREPARED to SUFFER the CONSEQUENCES !

So what's triggered this blast of outrage?

A photo of a baby wearing a mask.

So she's back and fighting relentlessly for Article 61 by going full frontal against the hard targets, baby photographs. Although I have to admit that the treason aspect of baby photos eludes me. The gallows for putting a mask on a baby? I note that she hasn't taken the bold step of telling Richard Warman he's up for the gibbet too, she's apparently carefully focusing her wrath on enemies that can't bite her in the ass. Her (very few) FB buddies are all in agreement;

Nic Galloway
What is beyond recognition & horrifying is that the governments & media have completely overridden the strongest force in nature. A mother’s connection to & instinct to protect her child at all costs.

For a mother to allow this, I have no words for. There’s not a chance in hell any health care worker would be getting close enough to my child to even do it.

Health care workers are mothers too, it’s beyond comprehension. They are eradicating our natural law & instincts we were all innately born with

Mariete Lz
Tightens my airway just looking at this photo!!! Parents, stop listening and watching the mainstream of lies of seditions and Treason!!!

Sharonerella Walsh
This makes me so angry please can I share Jacquie Phoenix x

So, Jacquie, if you're back and on the offensive, time to go after Richard again. That is, if you really believe in the crap you're flogging.

[JamesVincent]

Never understood the fascination with treason. Got arrested for drunk driving? Treason! Got foreclosed on? Treason! Car repopped? Treason! Someone called you names online? Treason! And sedition!

There's actually things I can understand that FMOTL rant about but that understanding runs real short just from their rhetoric. And then there's other things that I can only scratch my head at.

[Pottapaug1938]

Never understood the fascination with treason. Got arrested for drunk driving? Treason! Got foreclosed on? Treason! Car repopped? Treason! Someone called you names online? Treason! And sedition!

There's actually things I can understand that FMOTL rant about but that understanding runs real short just from their rhetoric. And then there's other things that I can only scratch my head at.

It's what one writer has described as "going nuclear". It's an attempt to shut down further debate by hanging a distasteful and obnoxious label on someone, as in "why do you believe anything that they say? They are a traitor!" Sadly, in the United States, I've seen that label lobbed at, to name but two, Presidents Obama and Trump; and when I call them out on that, pointing out that Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution, makes it impossible (at least, until now) for either one to be a traitor, I usually get a response of "oh, I was using the 'cultural' definition of the word," or "Country X is our enemy; so if President Z aids them, he is a traitor." If I point out that, under American law, a foreign country cannot be our "enemy" without the existence of a state of declared or open shooting war, I am told that I am "legalistic."

In other countries, the FMOTLers usually reach back to something like the 16th century reign of King Derwin of Didd, and cite a law of King Derwin, quite forgetting that, like the Magna Carta, it is wholly invalid today, or almost so.

[TBL]

For me, their fall-back position to treason for just about everything makes me think of a toddler screaming "meanie" at someone. They don't have a valid issue in anyone else's eyes, but they still feel wronged. It's a way to look like they'd win if it weren't for all those pesky statutes. Of course, the statutes are all invalid, why can't everyone see that?!

[Burnaby49]

Jacquie's recovered her "Sovereign wrath" and is back on the warpath!

This man that is clearly brainwashed by the Regime and it’s Legalese. Tried to slander me on his legal forum (what is legal is NOT Lawful, they are 2 different jurisdictions) I will post the link to his video.

You have all seen my video response, you will see how he cuts out some parts, he doesn’t know that Sedition is to Deny the Constitution (you will get a kick out of what he thinks it is)

Propaganda at it’s Finest right here folks

Feel Free to unleash your Sovereign wrath on this so called legal beagle

Her devoted acolytes share her anger but immediately devolved into idiotic squabbling with each other;

Chez Arenburg Nic Galloway wtf is it with you men here in canada....wth

Nic Galloway Chez Arenburg I beg your pardon? What did I do?

Chez Arenburg Nic Galloway you heard me......ive seen your page..you no all about magna carta laws,,,you man up and learn techie side of it to defend it...like a man should..us women depend on your men to defend our country and our fukin law..and you say..i beg you pardon like ive said something wrong here...man up

Nic Galloway Chez Arenburg firstly I am a woman, Nic is short for Nicole. Secondly I don’t live in Canada, thirdly since I found this 5 months ago I have stepped up & been sharing it everywhere & teaching as I go.

I am a single parent who works & is being currently trained by Jacquie so that I can help everyone in not only my country but the commonwealth.

I resent your attack on me when I am still learning & doing the best I can! We should be supporting each other. Not tearing each other apart!

Chez seems, shall we say, a bit dim;

Chez Arenburg t waste my energy on our group leader...wtf....you blame me for doing something i am told to do by the leader...i am a newbie thanks......and i respect her a lot more than you sony boy....and im a bit merry right now...and im from aus..so i say it like it is and if you dont like the truth and wont stand up as a man and by magna carta and our leader..then what are you...and why you tell me off..when i was doing as i was told kind of..there

Nic Galloway Chez Arenburg I’m not a damn man & I’m an Aussie too. That is who I’m fighting for!

Chez Arenburg Nic Galloway well y didnt u say you are a female then.... and if your in training you better do as your leader tells you .. wich s what i did..and then u said..focus else where..how can you focus when you read that shit on youtube that everyone can read but no one will defend

Then Chez loses what little sense he has, if indeed he ever had any;

Chez Arenburg Nic Galloway where would you like me to start ...? where you had the cheek to type to e like i was a child...focus on the REMEDY !!!!!! and they are calling magna carta out like bat shit crazy ect ect ect..like i said..i listened to it all..because our leader in this fukin group posted it..asked us to hear it...ok...and then you say...dont waste your energy....and that to me is a red flag right there..like wtf are you seriously...dont you do as you being taught by person out front or what..then some one else come os and starts that bullshit again you sick of hearing all the time like...focus on the remedy when shit like that is being said...and everytime i ask anyone to join they say it aint real at all...well course they do because shit like that is public and no one defends it..you all say focus on the remedy and then wonder why we get angry......jesus mother of ishea i got the shits on when one says one thng and and you wont defend it makes us all look stupid...like i said you started it and you riled me right up

Chez Arenburg Jacquie Phoenix well she shouldnt of told me to focus on remedy..thats a broken record to my ears now...after reading all that filth on there..was terrible

.

Chez Arenburg and maybe you should warn her...your the leader..and when you tell us to do things..we do them..and she shouldnt tell us not too...and maybe warn her about me........i can be...taken out of context when i get riled..we all have our..individualety....and im ausie and we get hot fast...we never back down...and i was sticking up for you too..i waas ready to give her a thonging...seriously....wich is funny actually..she needs to toughen up to..because some of us are bit..iffy here...lol

Jacquie had to step in and shut down comments;

Jacquie Phoenix Chez Arenburg I tell people to focus on the Remedy, it was filth we can all agree on that. That was the point of her telling you to focus on the Remedy. She is doing what was asked of her.

Now I am going to turn off comments

https://www.facebook.com/groups/754338 ... 564307398/

However given Jacquie's disastrous court loss at ABQB it doesn't really matter about the caliber of her allies, so having the support of idiots like Chez doesn't really help or hurt her. The MCLR's (using ABQB nonclemature) home Facebook group is getting really pathetic. People keep posting correspondence from the targets of MCLR magic paperwork, who are confused, or warning the MCLR adherents that their magic paperwork has no effect. That has led to weeks of "how do we discipline the seditionists?" questions, all of which are responded to by either: 1) send more magic paperwork, or 2) when there are enough of us we take over! Except the latter condition doesn't look like it's going to be satisfied. I think morale and new recruitments are dwindling off.

So, back on topic, who was Jacquie ranting about? Ideally it would be Richard Warman, a worthy opponent for someone who believes she's in control of all of Canada's governments and courts. But she's apparently being very, very careful not to antagonize Richard. She's on about this guy, whoever he is;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RQE7paXXbc

Never run across him before. He actually has two videos addressing Jacquie's recent AQB disaster, the above link is to the second. The first is this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2BWhZDFRTg

Which I'd recommend skipping. It's just the blogger reading the AVI v MHVB decision (http://canlii.ca/t/j9c1p) aloud, apparently his first read of it. He comments on the decision, its law, and contents. Well I've already done that in Quatloos in writing so you didn't have to listen to me droning on and on for an hour and a half.

The second video is shorter but he wears a cowboy hat. Trying to ignore the hat I'll do a quick run-through of that one since the blogger responds on a point-by-point basis to Jacquie's videos, and their stupid content. He covers both of Jacquie's videos, the one where she accuses the National Post of sedition and the one where she unwisely challenged Richard Warman.

First, he shows empathy for her defeat "She's upset, Jacquie's sad, and we here on Civil Law we'd like to respond to the sadness. We're gonna address Jacquie's sadness." He proposed doing this by watching anc commenting on her videos which, to this point he claimed not to have seen.

He starts with her published statement about the National Post article about her where she said she was responding to the seditious and libelous publication written about her by Tom Blackwell. He generously said that she's at least half "theoretically" right, she's half on to something that makes sense. Although he's skeptical that libel can be attached to her because, based on the lawsuit he covered in the first video, she's insane, but it is possible, at least in principle, that she was libeled. But he balked at sedition not seeing how it's possible in a newspaper article criticizing an individual. At about 3'05 he warned us that an analysis of all of this would lower our IQ's and said we should feel free to bail out now. With that he started running her video and commenting on it as she went along. I'm not going to review it in detail. He was constantly commenting on her idiocy but really nothing that wasn't in the court decision. So it's entertaining (watch it yourselves) but not really legally informative. I thought him far too picky in trying to tie Jacquie down to specific legal terminology. For example he got obsessive about her claim of sedition against the National Post. He wanted a specific precise identification as to whom the Post had committed sedition against. Canada? The UK? Rebellious Lords? Jacquie herself? That's not what Jacquie does, she's a big picture girl and can't be expected to focus on trivial legal details like the actual practical application of her accusations within a known legal context. Yet he kept picking way at the relevance of her comments to real law.

In any case I would discount or even reject a lot of his discourse because he's an American and can't be expected to understand the nuances of Canadian law. As he said "I know pretty much nothing about Canadian law". Yet he goes against Jacquie, a Canadian and a self-proclaimed constitutional expert with a specific expertise in the Magna Carta, the supreme law of Canada. The job of disemboweling Jacquie is best left to we Canadians, say a local boy like Judge Graesser who certainly didn't seem to need any assistance in ripping her apart.

One other point of interest. Karl Lentz, a long-standing Quatloos target,

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10467

also followed this video. He had a complaint on Uncivil Law's sources;

Karl Lentz 2 weeks ago
Where is her original stream where is her original video so we could watch it and it's entirety thank you I'm surprised you did not put a link in the description it's kind of unethical to use somebody else's material without putting a link into the description

Karl also believes that children are the personal property of the parents, a point he makes explicit in the comments;

Karl Lentz 2 weeks ago
This woman Got the concept of son/ daughter/wife property from i

After seeing that I went back to the first video and checked out the comments and there he is throwing a blowhard challenge at Uncivil Law;

Karl Lentz 3 weeks ago
Hey why don't you pick on 'i' , 'i' destroy every legal argument in court EVERY time

Poor Karl, desperate for a little attention.

I wrote the preceding yesterday. Jacquie has since made a new FB posting. She sounds very demoralized by her followers' moronic bickering;

Jacquie Phoenix
18h
I can't believe the bs and ego filled crap coming out of people the last few days.

Maybe David Robinson is right maybe this movement is spent. People don't seem to care that they are losing their rights and freedoms and their ego's are too big to even care about learning how to fight this war. Maybe I should just close all 3 groups and let you sink.

This is not Rocket science People.

In 1215 people couldn't even read or write and they could do this, so what's your excuse ?

You can't change how the Law Functions just because you don't agree with something.

You want to be UN slaves go for it. Why are we even trying to save you if you are willing to let your OWN ego defeat you ?

Do you not think that admins have better things to do in a day than battle YOUR EGO's to save YOU ?

Seriously get it together or I WILL CLOSE ALL 3 GROUPS just like David closed the UK group.

STOP whining and START fighting !

Jacquie, I feel your pain, it's demoralizing for me too. She showed such promise, a new sovereign guru rising, like her namesake, from the ashes of all the old discredited gurus. She was doing great with that court confrontation, even generating a mini-Meads from Alberta Queen's Bench, a signal honour. I even had hopes of her going head to head with Richard Warman. And now? Outrage at a baby picture and a rant at some obscure American legal blogger. Call that a rebellion?

[Burnaby49]

I just remembered that today is an important day for Jacquie. AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 included this little time bomb;

[121]Robinson has until September 30, 2020 to make written submission sand provide affidavit evidence relating to:1.whether Robinson should be restricted in relation to Alberta legal processes and court proceedings, and2.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.

In other words the court is contemplating declaring Jacquie a vexatious litigant. Given the court's history with sovereign filings this is not an idle threat. This would close her access to the courts of Alberta except for legitimate court actions. Since no Section 61 claim, regardless of how it is worded, fits within the context of "legitimate" a vexatious litigant designation would totally shut Jacquie out from filing any further sovereign gibberish in an Albertan court. Today is her last chance to respond to this flagrant violation of her Magna Carta given rights to argue her lunatic beliefs in court. I've not heard yet that she's filed a response.

[JamesVincent]

I thought Lentz was enjoying a lovely staycation courtesy of Her Majesty? Or am i behind in Dumfuckistanian lore.

As an aside where do these people go to school? Every time one of them starts a diatribe I feel like I'm learning about "The English as She is Spoke" again.