Magna Carta and Freemen on the Land

4 December 2020 by

AVI and MHVB and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix (Third Party and Unauthorised Alleged Representative) 2020 ABQB 489

I was put on to this decision from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta by a response to a post from the Secret Barrister on Twitter (@barristerSecret) . This concerns the Magna Carta tsunami that has wreaked a certain amount of havoc on social media in response to the government’s Covid restrictions.

We have been taking an interest in the Freemen on the Land phenomenon from the early days of the UKHRB. See Adam Wagner’s 2011 “Freemen of the Dangerous Nonsense” and his comment on the 2012 Alberta case Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) 

I urge you to read the Secret Barrister’s article in full: Can the Magna Carta Give You Immunity from Covid Regulations?. Just by way of summary, I’ll give you a few quotes from the article before giving a brief description of the Alberta judgment. The Secret Barrister reports that business owners have been posting in public places their interpretation of this ancient document because they believe it to

confer immunity from the regulations requiring them to close their businesses for 4 weeks. Unfortunately, as the proliferation of punitive financial penalties demonstrates, no such immunity exists.

Followers of the group called “Freemen on the Land” claim to have pledged an oath of allegiance to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, one of a group of British peers who campaigned in 2001 to block the United Kingdom’s ratification of the Treaty of Nice, part of the sequence of agreements to extend the powers of EU authorities. The Secret Barrister describes the self-styled “Freemen on the Land” as

a grouping of proselytising individuals who believe that by misquoting Magna Carta and basic tenets of contract law, they can somehow place themselves outside the jurisdiction of the law of England & Wales. By making various incoherent and illogical assertions cloaked in legalese, they profess to be bound by “other” laws, such as the laws of the sea or long-repealed mediaeval treaties, and claim that the legal system has no control over them.

As he points out, this “fraud” has already been adjudicated upon elsewhere; the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in the case of Meads v. Meads, the 2012 judgment referred to above. The ruling “painstakingly and comprehensively dismantled the legal shibboleths of these various linked movements (referred to by the judge as “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants”, or “OPCA”, due to a common thread of the groups’ arguments being that in order to be bound by the law, you have to explicitly agree to it, akin to entering a commercial contract).”

And now we have the latest from High Court in Alberta. Mr Justice Robert A. Graesser does not mince his words in his opening statements:

[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.

The Canadian branch of Freemen on the Land claimed that Canada’s laws only applied to them if they consented to it, and, as the judge observes, “unsurprisingly, Freemen usually didn’t.”

In Alberta members of these and other “pseudo-legal” groups have been filing documents with the courts with titles like “Notice of Lawful Objection & Declaratation of Standing in Law” [sic]; the misspelling is one of the many variants of the word that the person who invented the Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion [MCLR] scheme, UK resident David Robinson, The Canadian authors of these items declare that they too have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Scots Lord, 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.

The “Alleged Unauthorised Representative” to this dispute, “Jacquie Phoenix” claimed to be representing the mother in a bitter custody battle. Her real name is Jacqueline Robinson. As a member of the MCLR, Ms Robinson maintained that Canada’s laws did not apply to her or her client nor could the courts enforce them.

Graesser J received a letter from Ms Robinson two months before handing down this ruling. In the letter, she claimed to represent the mother of the child at the centre of the dispute, and said that if he did not order the return of the child he would be accused of sedition and sentenced accordingly.

The judge barred her from representing the mother, saying that Robinson had abused the court process as a “busybody” interloper.

I can only guess at the scope and kind of misconduct and self-injury that results from the MCLR [the Magna Carta] 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.”

The judge has not only barred Ms Robinson from representing any other clients in Alberta’s courts, but has also said he would send a copy of his decision to Lord Craigmyle.

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.

1 comment;


  1. jake says:

    i thought magna carta was abolished decades ago? right to a fair and speedy trial? right to know your accusers…..? even when they do bother to accuse you of something…..when was the last time that actually happened?

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: