First there were the “detaxers,” who claimed that their physical, human selves were exempt from taxation rules. Then came the “freemen of the land” who said Canadian law only applied to them if they consented to it. Most didn’t.
Now a lengthy Alberta court decision has revealed a new version of what legal experts term “pseudo law,” and cracked down on one of its most prolific practitioners.
Quote:
A woman calling herself Jacquie Phoenix and representing the mother in a bitter child-custody dispute says she has pledged allegiance to a British lord and invoked an article of the Magna Carta that means Canada’s laws and courts do not apply to her and her client. She threatened a judge with “the gallows” if he didn’t comply.
Phoenix, whose legal name is Robinson, is one of a number of followers of a scheme Justice Robert Graesser calls the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” who have notified Alberta courts recently of their supposed legal immunity.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The actual letter that "Jacquie Phoenix" sent to Queen's Bench Justice Graesser.
Quote:
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.
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.
Yeah, the Freeman on the Land movement won't go away as long as you have proponents that can make money peddling the crap.
Why I found this latest story to be fascinated in that its the second time an Alberta Court has taken the time to completely dismantle the arguments of these conspiracy movements.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
For anyone out who still believes this pandemic nonsense. Please look at the up coming Court Case against Bill Gates, the CDC, WHO and more. charged with Human Rights Violators, War Crimes with intent to commit mass Genocide. Trial start on June 5 2020
For anyone out who still believes this pandemic nonsense. Please look at the up coming Court Case against Bill Gates, the CDC, WHO and more. charged with Human Rights Violators, War Crimes with intent to commit mass Genocide. Trial start on June 5 2020
Oh it gets better and better.
War Crimes yet. I was unaware we were at War. Is COVID pressing charges and demanding a trial?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
A dad on one of my kid's teams was a "detaxer", dude had a sweet Vette and a big acreage out in Springbank. Googled him a while back since his case got a bit of coverage, looks like he is off to jail for 12 months. CRA doesn't #### around.
I honestly would prefer that judges not do this, and simply refer to Meads v. Meads rather than spending further time on nonsense like this. The judge in this case actually considers the arguments. It's a waste of judicial resources, which are already scarce, and even more so now due to the fact that a bunch of things got postponed this year.
I assume Graesser talked to Rooke about it before doing this, but I just don't see the point in any of it. It's a bunch of nonsense. We know. You don't even need to entertain it.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I honestly would prefer that judges not do this, and simply refer to Meads v. Meads rather than spending further time on nonsense like this. The judge in this case actually considers the arguments. It's a waste of judicial resources, which are already scarce, and even more so now due to the fact that a bunch of things got postponed this year.
I assume Graesser talked to Rooke about it before doing this, but I just don't see the point in any of it. It's a bunch of nonsense. We know. You don't even need to entertain it.
This is my concern too. Graesser does explain in 130 and 131 why he was compelled to write detailed reasons.
This is my concern too. Graesser does explain in 130 and 131 why he was compelled to write detailed reasons.
I read that, but I don't agree. R. v. Duncan was a bit controversial due to the tone, but regardless of what you think of that (I happened to think it was great), the comment about Meads is exactly what I think is appropriate:
There is no merit to Mr. Duncan’s jurisdictional argument. Such arguments are a waste of the court’s time and resources, a selfish and/or unthinking act of disrespect to other litigants and deserving of no further attention, energy or comment.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I honestly would prefer that judges not do this, and simply refer to Meads v. Meads rather than spending further time on nonsense like this. The judge in this case actually considers the arguments. It's a waste of judicial resources, which are already scarce, and even more so now due to the fact that a bunch of things got postponed this year.
I assume Graesser talked to Rooke about it before doing this, but I just don't see the point in any of it. It's a bunch of nonsense. We know. You don't even need to entertain it.
One of the great struggles of expanding access to justice. Its almost unavoidable that, as self-reps gain an increased ability to handle their matter before the courts without the assistance of a lawyer, the courts will see an increase in the occurrence of such quackery. Very difficult balancing act that I wouldn't even begin to pretend to have a solution for.