Court inflicted constraints on a party for role in a child’s life because of not being a befitting parent/guardian.
Jacquie Phoenix (the legal name being Jacqueline Robinson) wrote a letter to the applicant claiming it to be on behalf of the respondent (MHVB), where she stated that Court of Queen’s Bench has no authority to deal with the matters of the respondent since respondent has pledged allegiance to a British Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire and invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta. Consequently, the respondent is no longer bound to follow the Canada’s law and all the decisions made by the Queen’s Bench concerning respondent and her property (four-year-old daughter) is void and her property should be returned to her within 7 days. Subsequently, she wrote two similar letters until the issue reached before the present Court.
• The court first repudiates Robinson’s claim to act as a legal representative of MHVB as her claim stands in prohibition with the Legal Profession Act. The said act permits legal representation of natural-born persons in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench only by a lawyer, and Robinson was not a registered lawyer under the law society of Alberta. Further, the act of Robinson of advancing (Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument) OPCA strategies, disrespecting the law, and reducing the child to a chattel property; the Court deems that Robinson should be globally outlawed from activities suchlike providing legal advice, communicating with Alberta Court, acting as an agent, friend or any other form of representation in Court proceedings. Henceforth, Robinson has been granted a substantial amount of time (till September 30, 2020) to make written submissions and affidavits as to why she should not be prohibited from involving herself and others in court proceedings and legal procedures.
• Secondly, the Court observed that the terms and language used in the ‘Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion’ (MCLR) documents sent by Robinson are vague, inconsistent, or apparently invented out of thin air. Robinson sworn to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, who is not officially assigned to deal with Article 64 and, neither he has commanded him to do so. Further, 1215 Magna Carta, which has been repealed in 1216, explicitly prohibits child seizure and is not a super-constitutional authority.
• The Court further held, since the respondent has exhibited a consistent faith in OPCA and also has treated the child (Z) as a property or a chattel, she is not a befitting parent/guardian of the child and is compelled to inflict constraints on the role of MHVB in Z’s life. The Court also counsels MHVB to consult a lawyer or get public legal assistance of she wants that the restrictions do not expedites limits on her role in Z’s life.