AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790 Date: 20201216 Docket: FL03 55142 Registry: Edmonton Between: AVI Applicant and MHVB Respondent and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix Third Party and Unauthorized Alleged Representative _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________

I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is a follow-up to my decision of August 26, 2020 in AVI v MHVB , 2020 ABQB 489 [ AVI #1 ]. That decision centred on an intermeddler to a child custody dispute. The third party, whose actual name is Jacqueline Robinson, instead self-identified as “Jacquie Phoenix, Sovereign Woman Living on the Land, Legal Beneficiary / Soul Administrator To the Trust of the Legal Fiction Known as Jacqueline Robinson”. I will in this decision refer to Ms.

Robinson by her actual name, “Jacqueline Robinson”, rather than the legally meaningless “Strawman” legal persona she has adopted. [ 2 ] As discussed in AVI #1 , Ms. Robinson is a pseudolaw promoter, or “guru”. Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 [“ Meads ”], ACJ Rooke grouped these concepts together under the term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments”, or “OPCA”.

In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense. [ 3 ] Gurus are a particularly obnoxious component of the pseudolaw phenomenon.

They operate as “Typhoid Marys” who spread the pseudolaw “disease of ideas” into new populations: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolaw Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53: 3 Alta LR 609 at 611 . [ 4 ] In Meads at paras 669-671 , Rooke ACJ characterized OPCA gurus as “evil counsellors”, “falsifiers”, and “hustlers” who “profit at the expense of naïve and vulnerable customers”, “selling lies or wildly dubious concepts.” [ 5 ] I agree with these descriptions of OPCA gurus. They apply to Ms. Robinson. As I observed in AVI #1 at para 19 , Ms.

Robinson knows her techniques do not work because, despite having deployed her pseudolaw shield, Ms. Robinson was nevertheless convicted of traffic offences in 2019. [ 6 ] There is a temptation to ignore OPCAs and treat them as irritants. That would perhaps be appropriate for one-off situations, but where many people are involved and there is some sort of organization, the public needs to be protected from them. Sadly, conspiracy theories appear to be gaining in recognition. Many people search for “truth” whether it be legal truths, medical truths, or news truths on the Internet.

There is no doubt that the Internet is an amazing source of information, but there are no filters to distinguish between fact and fiction. The decriers of “fake news” are too frequently the creators of fake news. [ 7 ] The fakery of the Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion is exemplified by this case. A year ago, MHVB had access to her daughter. She wanted greater access and access without restrictions. After joining with Ms. Robinson and her group, MHVB no longer has any access to her daughter. She has been removed as a guardian of that child.

There is a warrant for her arrest following her failure to appear on criminal proceedings against her. [ 8 ] This decision is not about MHVB any longer, it is about Ms. Robinson and the nonsense she spreads. It is also about her threats and intimidation to the Court and court staff. A. The Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion [MCLR] [ 9 ] Ms. Robinson promotes a variant of pseudolaw that I named “ Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion”, or “MCLR”. AVI #1 at paras 38-71 explains my understanding of the MCLR scheme and its conceptual foundation. [ 10 ] In brief, MCLR claims that if one sends an oath of allegiance that invokes

Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, then that places you outside UK and Commonwealth state, court, and police authority. You are now a sworn oathsman (or oathswoman), and serve under the banner of 28 rebel barons who disapprove of the European Union. These rebel barons in 2001 invoked the “Constitutional Royal Protocol”, and shattered “English Constitutional law”.

In fact, according to MCLR theory, there has been no valid government authority in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth from 2001 onward. [ 11 ] If this narrative sounds ridiculous, that is because, factually, MCLR theory is ridiculous. Lord Craigmyle has no idea why people are sending him oaths of allegiance and ignores these documents.

If the UK (and Commonwealth) have been in a state of constitutional chaos and rebellion for the past nearly 20 years then I, and apparently everyone else including Lord Craigmyle himself, have not noticed. [ 12 ] Then there are the numerous other flaws in this scheme that I identify and review in AVI #1 at paras 72-104 . For example,

Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late. [ 13 ] In AVI #1 , I chose to debunk the foundations for MCLR theory, rather than simply write it off as baseless.

I do not intend to repeat my analysis here, as it is already completed. [ 14 ] This litigation is, sadly, an example where pseudolaw has contributed to a negative and unfortunate outcome. Ms. Robinson’s gibberish has real-world victims. B. AVI, MHVB, A, and Z [ 15 ] Earlier, I indicated Ms. Robinson intruded into a high-conflict child custody matter as an interfering third party. I was case managing this dispute. Briefly, MHVB, the mother of a now five-year old child, Z, abducted Z and fled to the US. When Z was recovered, Z’s father, AVI, was granted custody of Z. MHVB, and MHVB’s mother, A, had access to Z.

[ 16 ] Ms. Robinson then entered the fray. On June 27, 2020, I received a package of documents from Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson (incorrectly) claimed to represent MHVB by a “Power of Attorney”. Ms. Robinson declared that MHVB was a Magna Carta Lawful Rebel, with the result that MHVB was purportedly outside of court authority: “All Judgments made by the Court of Queen’s Bench in this matter are Null and Void”.

Further, my failure to deliver MHVB “her Property” - Z - within seven days “will constitute as High Treason”, and I would face “the Gallows”: AVI #1 at para 6 . [ 17 ] AVI and his lawyer received essentially the same threats from Ms. Robinson, but were also told that they would be penalized $50,000 per day until MHVB got “her Property” back. [ 18 ] I wrote AVI #1 in response, and at para 34 : 1. required Ms. Robinson only communicate with the Court using the name “Jacqueline Robinson”, rather than the “Jacquie Phoenix” persona; and 2. prohibited Ms. Robinson from:

a) purporting to represent MHVB in any capacity;

b) being involved with documentation relating to the AVI v MHVB matter, and

c) communicating with the Court in relation to the AVI v MHVB matter. [ 19 ] The exception to the final prohibition is that Ms. Robinson was invited to make submissions on why she should not be prohibited from being involved in or acting as a representative in any litigation in Alberta Courts: AVI #1 at paras 120-122 . [ 20 ] I also warned MHVB (at paras 124-129 ) that attempting to employ OPCA strategies had very negative potential consequences for MHVB’s future interactions and role with Z. I observed that MHVB claiming a child was “her Property” did not reflect well on MHVB as a responsible caregiver.

I strongly recommended that MHVB obtain professional legal assistance, or at a minimum, contact a public legal assistance resource. II. Subsequent Developments [ 21 ] A number of events have transpired since AVI #1 was released. [ 22 ] I have received no submissions from Ms. Robinson on why she should not be prohibited from acting as a legal representative in Alberta Courts. MHVB sent no further MCLR documents to this Court, and therefore appears to have abandoned a partially completed MCLR “Three/Five Letters” process that targeted Associate Chief Justice Nielsen of this Court.

MHVB did not attend her criminal abduction prosecution hearing ( R v MHVB , Edmonton 191419951P101 (Alta PC)), and so now MHVB is also facing failure to appear criminal charges ( R v MHVB , Edmonton 200728665P101 (Alta PC)). A Warrant has issued for MHVB’s arrest. [ 23 ] On September 11, 2020, AVI applied to vary Z’s parenting arrangements to suspend MHVB’s parenting time. [ 24 ] AVI’s application states he and his lawyer had been threatened by MHVB and Ms. Robinson, who claim they are above the law. AVI perceived a “severe risk” that MHVB would abduct Z again, and that MHVB, Ms. Robinson, and/or Ms.

Robinson’s followers would engage in illegal activity directed to Z. [ 25 ] Justice Sulyma granted AVI’s application, on September 14, 2020, and ruled AVI is the sole guardian and decision-maker for Z. Any further direct or indirect contact between MHVB and Z is prohibited. MHVB did not attend this application. [ 26 ] AVI in his September 11, 2020, application also reported that Ms. Robinson had made public statements in response to AVI #1 , including video rebuttals of articles published in the National Post reporting on AVI #1 . Ms.

Robinson was said to have rejected the Court’s judgment, saying “it had no more effect on (her) than a statement by the CEO of McDonalds.” AVI noted Ms. Robinson claimed to have thousands of followers in a number of countries. [ 27 ] If nothing else, the newspaper report indicated by AVI (Tom Blackwell, “Lawyer files criminal complaint against ‘pseudo law’ follower accusing Alberta judge of sedition” National Post (3 September 2020), online: <nationalpost.com/news/canada/lawyer- files-criminal-complaint-against-pseudo-law-follower-accusing-alberta-judge-of-sedition>), and Ms.

Robinson’s YouTube video rebuttals, establish that Ms. Robinson had received the AVI #1 decision, and that Ms. Robinson does not accept the Court’s judgment as correct or valid. She has not, however, appealed that decision. [ 28 ] That conclusion, in any case, has subsequently become obvious. Ms. Robinson has sent further MCLR correspondence to the Court. First, a packet was received from “Jacquie Phoenix”, dated October 16, 2020, and addressed to “All Alberta Clerks of the Court (Failure to Identify is Misconduct in Public Office) doing business as Clerks of the Court”.

It reads: Dear, Alberta Clerks of the Court rubber stamping and signing documents without your printed name. Failure to Identify is Misconduct in Public Office. Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent This document is meant to inform you it means what it says and it says what it means. On March 23rd, 2001

Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked according to Constitutional Protocol due to Treason at the Highest Levels. This is Evidential Fact, The Queen has been deposed all her governments were dissolved of all authority. It is by Royal

Command that we take the Oath of

Article 61 and defend the Constitution. We the People of the Commonwealth of Great Britain demand that our Rule of Law be Restored. Our Common Law Justice System. Properly Convened Court De Jure Jury Trials of the People with full Jury Nullification. On February 27th, 2019 Sharon Lepecich Executive Director of the Provincial Court of Alberta was put on Notice of the Evidential Facts. Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent. It was her Duty to inform you that Treason has and is being committed against the people and that

Article 61 is the Only Law in effect throughout the Commonwealth Realm. The courts have been Usurped by a Treasonous Regime and they are using Unconstitutional Acts and Statutes to commit very serious crimes against the People and the Clerks of the Court are rubber stamping these crimes. We are all responsible for our own Actions inactions and omissions. I urge you to consider Nuremburg I was just doing my Job is NO defence as Evidenced from those Trials.

Maxum in Law Ignorance of the Law is no excuse [Jacquie Phoenix signature] [Sic, emphasis and formatting in original.] [ 29 ] This item was accompanied by a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance” document dated October 14, 2020, that is addressed to “Failure to Identify (Misconduct in Public Office) doing business as Clerks of the Court”, carrying the docket number of this action (#FL 03 055142”), and signed “Jacquie Phoenix” in purple ink and with a purple ink fingerprint. This document otherwise largely matches what I received from Ms. Robinson on June 27, 2020, and that is reproduced in AVI #1 at Appendix “D”.

The exception is that Ms. Robinson now threatens the Court and its staff: Failure to respond to this 'Notice of conditional acceptance' within the reasonable time frame allotted, and or without providing evidence in substance that clearly defines that

article 61 is no longer in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including interested third parties) that Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has NO lawful claim against I, Jacquie Phoenix or [MHVB] and, that Failure to Restore Her Property or any future attempt to extort monies or goods relating to this this matter would be harassment, coercion and demanding monies with menaces, which may evoke a counter claim for damages against Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and you personally Court Clerks who Failed to Identify.

All Records and Hard drives will be seized by a Jury of the People to Identify you [Sic.] [ 30 ] Ms. Robinson also attached another copy of the MHVB “Power of Attorney” document. [ 31 ] In addition, Ms. Robinson, as “Jacquie Phoenix”, has witnessed additional MCLR documents sent to Associate Chief Justice Rooke of this Court. These appear to be the parts 4 and 5 of the MCLR Three/Five Letters process.

These items, “Notice of Coercion to Aid and Abet High Treason & Misprison of Treason”, and “Notice to Stop”, are attached as Appendices “A” and “B”. [ 32 ] The contents of these documents are typical of a Three/Five Letters scheme ( Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 ; Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky , 2014 ABQB 771 ), though the “Notice of Coercion” provides a more expansive and detailed historical narrative that explains the conspiracy, treason, and sedition which led the 28 new rebel barons to stage their revolt in 2001. [ 33 ] These documents purport to clear up any mystery about the 2001 Barons’ fears for treason.

It turns out the Nazis are behind it all. In 1942, the Nazis set up the foundation for the European Union: ... with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. [ 34 ] I have carefully reviewed the timeline of wrongdoing found in the “Notice of Coercion”, and note that while this document concludes that a succession of UK Prime Ministers and governments engaged in high treason, treason, and sedition, that absolutely nothing described has anything to do with Canada.

This leads me again to wonder how it is that Ms. Robinson and her followers can imagine that these declarations of UK (and Nazi) wrongdoing would purportedly affect the authority and legitimacy of Canadian governments and institutions. [ 35 ] Then there is this strange claim: ... The last constitutionally correct coronation Oath was taken by the traitor James II in 1685. [ 36 ] I assume that this claim follows the theory that Queen Elizabeth II was not properly crowned and never became the Queen, such that no legislation since then and no official acts have any validity.

The defect in her coronation as I understand it is that the Queen did not kneel on the Stone of Scone when giving her oath. All Kings and Queens since James II had knelt on this famous stone, which was housed in Westminster Abbey in London. Shortly before the coronation, the Stone was stolen. Lore has it that the Queen knelt on a replica of the Stone, as the original had not been recovered from its thieves (allegedly Scottish Nationals). [ 37 ] I am unaware of why coronations prior to that of Queen Elizabeth II are alleged to be invalid.

The allegation is just another example of the gibberish that is in these documents. III. Steps Forward [ 38 ] I am no longer the Case Management Justice for the AVI v MHVB child custody dispute. There is nothing more to do. AVI has sole custody and guardianship of Z. To my knowledge that decision is unappealed.

[39] In AVI #1, I sought submissions from Ms. Robinson on why she should not be prohibited from acting as a litigationrepresentative or participating in litigation that involves persons other than herself. I received no submissions from Ms. Robinson, but herresponse was to continue her MCLR activities.

She has even gone further, and publicly declared she has no intention to follow courtinstructions because she and her followers possess superior authority. [40] Representing another person before the court is not a right, but a privilege: R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27 at para 6. “Each courthas the responsibility to ensure that persons appearing before it are properly represented ... and to maintain the rule of law and theintegrity of the court generally.” [emphasis added]: R v Dick, para 7. [41] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Romanowicz (1999), (ON CA), 138 CCC (3d) 225 (Ont CA) ruled thata person should be barred from operating as a litigation representative if that representation would harm the individual beingrepresented, where representation would interfere with the administration of justice, and if the candidate representative exhibits “...blatant disrespect for the law. ...”: para 74.

Ms. Robinson has satisfied all those criteria. Ms. Robinson has contributed to the separationof a mother and daughter, and placed the health and well-being of a child at risk. [42] The law in Canada is clear and consistent that a person who advocates or advances OPCA strategies is unfit to act as alitigation representative: R v Dick; Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213; Shannon v The Queen, 2016 TCC 255; R v Ciciarelli, 2019ONSC 6719. [43] In light of Ms. Robinson’s failure to respond to my request for submissions in AVI #1, and her post-AVI #1 conduct, I order,effective immediately, that: 1.

Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. “Jacquie Phoenix” is prohibited from:

a) providing legal advice,

b) preparing documents intended to be filed in any Alberta court for any person other than herself, and

c) filing or otherwise communicating with any Alberta court, except on her own behalf. 2. Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. “Jacquie Phoenix” is prohibited from acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (fromMcKenzie 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 formof representation in Alberta court proceedings. [44] Ms.

Robinson’s MCLR materials sent to myself on June 27, 2020, and the October 16, 2020, materials received by the clerksof the Court may represent criminal conduct, “intimidation of a justice system participant”, Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1;Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 58-69. [45] Ms. Robinson appears to be in contempt of court since she has ignored the Court’s Order dated August 25, 2020, that requiresher to only correspond with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench as “Jacqueline Robinson”, and that Ms.

Robinson again breached thatOrder’s prohibition against her filing, preparing, witnessing, and otherwise formalizing any document in relation to the AVI v MHVBaction. [46] I therefore also order that: Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. “Jacquie Phoenix”, is prohibited from sending documents to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or justices,officers, or employees of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, where those documents purport to claim, exercise, or impose authoritybased on

Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta. [47] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Robinson’s approval of the form and content ofthis Order is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). [48] Service of the Order on Ms. Robinson may be made by email or Facebook posting to Ms. Robinson’s last know electronicaddresses, as well as a copy being sent by ordinary mail to the address Ms.

Robinson has used in her communications with the Court.Such service is deemed good and sufficient on her. [49] In AVI #1, I cautioned MHVB about the serious consequences that pseudolaw could have for her. It is now Ms. Robinson’sturn to be warned. [50] This Court will not tolerate harassment and threats directed to its judges and staff. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction toprotect itself and its processes. If Ms. Robinson chooses to ignore this Court’s Orders, she can expect to be summoned to appear beforeme to explain her breaches of this Court’s binding instructions. [51] None of Ms.

Robinson’s pseudolegal claims will benefit her in any way. Her magic paperwork will not assist her. She knowswhy. I explained that in detail in AVI #1. [52] The consequences of contempt are not trivial. In Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114, and in particular paragraphs215-256, the Court concluded that gurus who promote OPCA schemes that purportedly defeat legitimate court authority are engaged incriminal contempt of court. [53] This may appear to be the use of a sledgehammer to crush an ant. I would instead use the analogy of an inoculation to stop avirus. OPCA and MCLR gurus harm people. Ms.

Robinson has already harmed MHVB and her family. These gurus teach illusions thatwill predictably fail. They promise much, but their clientele gets less than nothing. [54] These schemes are nothing more than cons, led by people who rely and feed on the oft-quoted statement attributed to P.T.

Barnum (of circus fame): a sucker is born every minute. That is as true now as it was when spoken more than 150 years ago. The Courts are not suckers. And the Courts will not be intimidated. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 16 th day of December 2020. Robert A. Graesser J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None.

Appendix “A”: “Notice of Coercion to Aid and Abet High Treason & Misprision of Treason” [Crest Design, see From: else marie smart AVI #1 , Appendix “E”] Address: 11247 25 Avenue NW Edmonton AB T6J 4X5 To: John D Rooke doing business as Associate Chief Justice Calgary Address: 2600, 450 1st Street SW Calgary AB T2P 5H1 Served by recorded post. NOTICE OF COERCION TO AID AND ABET HIGH TREASON & MISPRISION OF TREASON Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. Dear John D Rooke, Please read the following 'Notice' thoroughly and carefully.

It is a NOTICE , a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE . It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION .

Please be aware that failure to act upon this LAWFUL NOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/all English and Commonwealth sovereign men/women and anyone else whilst residing within these shores, or within or without the realm of the English Isles and Commonwealth and, is an OFFENCE under the (unlawfully repealed) 'Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act 1795,'

SECTION 5 (Misprision of treason). Whereby; it is an offence at common law for any person(

s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed within or without the realm, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace. Also please be aware that the penalty for committing 'Misprision of Treason' in this day is life imprisonment and total asset stripping , and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice, frivolity, vexation nor ill will. Whereas you persist to harass or ignore I, else marie smart, despite being notified of the facts, and that you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself or the fraudulently created 'legal fiction', and that you are either continuing to coerce me to comply with

unlawful, treasonous statutes by threat of enforcement, and or have ignored my claims entirely and, that you are acting in a criminal capacity for a 'corporation' whom has at this time no lawful claim against I, else marie smart, a sovereign subject/resident standing in lawful dissent and, whilst Parliament is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the English Isles and Commonwealth at this time, therefore I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially, or in any other way a treasonous administration of governance, or any private/public entity/person not also standing under

article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 whilst demanded/commanded by law to do so. Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DO SO! Therefore ... It is to my understanding that you must now by the common laws of this realm and, with the evidence herein/therein supplied STOP all unlawful actions against I, else marie smart, immediately. I have absolute 'lawful excuse' to deny payment or service to any agency of the Crown, or to make deals with anyone not also standing under said

article 61. In light of the evidence reported to you personally John D Rooke herein this notice, also the evidence supplied within previous Notices served, by LAW must now be reported by YOU to the police for you to stay within the confines of constitutional law, failure to do so would contravene the 1795 Treason Act

section V and would therefore be

an act of 'misprision of treason at common law'. I may be forced by law to report any further illegal demands from you to the police. FURTHERMORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that: 1.) A long range deception to overthrow the sovereignty of the British Isles, by controlling its currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalized by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942.

This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled 'Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft' (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as 'European Economic Community'. The

chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. 2.) Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union. 3.) The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-Frenchpro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group.

The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 30/1048. 4.) The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.

Also Common Purpose are an active pro EU lobby group masquerading as a charity with its grubby hands within our local services and institutions. 5.) The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. 6.) Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the (so called) "ruling elite" at the time, and these documents have since been released after the illegal thirty year rule hid them under national security legislation - entitled 'FCO 30-10/48 '.

A compilation of nearly 300 documents copied from the original documents which are still archived within the public records office today.

7.) The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm or loss to another's life, liberty or property, or their rights to life, liberty or property.

Not to Breach the peace nor to dishonour agreements and or contracts entered into. 8.) England, within the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' (both the latter two titles are now corporations) is a common law jurisdiction and the English parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war. 9.) No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common laws of England and the Commonwealth, which forms the English Constitution (Magna Carta 1215, and original Coronation Oath.

The last constitutionally correct coronation Oath was taken by the traitor James II in 1685). 10.) Treason in statute law was redefined by the unrepeated Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include;

a) compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son;

b) levying war against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder;

c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereign's enemies in war time. 11.) Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow a constitutionally bound Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. 12.) Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as writing, speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order.

Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. 13.) The evidence presented in the FCO 30/1048 ' files shows that the Heath Government of 1972 was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people which of course it was not. This in itself is

an act of Sedition at common law. 14.) The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over English and Commonwealth law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the English parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration. 15.) The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making powers further by extending qualified majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration. 16.) The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the usurped Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, was

an Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration. 17.) The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol, was

an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration. 18.) With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government illegally repealed the 1795 Treason legislation in

section 36 of the 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998' in an attempt to abolish the death penalty for high treason, however, the crime of Treason at common law still stands within other Acts (1351 - 1848 as well as 1795) as common law has primacy. This was a further Act of treason by the Blair Administration. 19.) The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

20.) In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word 'sovereignty' from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non English and British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration. 21.) The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders, was

an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration. 22.) The recent Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the English peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, which was misdirection anyway since it is illegal to vote to remain or leave a treasonous institution, and by surrendering further powers to the EU for direct taxation on the English/British people, and by allowing the EU to end the rebate via further proposed treaties, is evidence to prove that this is

an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration. 23.) Theresa May (late imposter) prime minister for providing a draft Brexit bill on the 14th November 2018, which under

article 171 provided the EU judiciary authority over our own common law judiciary and constitution and, for attempting to provide the EU control of our armed forces (PESCO) 'Permanent Structured Cooperation' and, whilst using the treasonous Brexit trap, which is a trap because it is treason to provide

Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty with authority to take us out of the EU, especially whilst the evidence proves that we were never legally in the EU. The above stated facts were Acts of High Treason at common law committed by the May Administration. 24.) The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books. One year of nonpublication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the EU's own court of auditors. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote.

They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of English taxpayer's funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence. Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful dissent (diffidatio) in support of the Barons petition of the 7th of February 2001 and, to continue to distress those who refuse to do so, as to the terms and conditions laid down under

Article 61 Magna Carta 1215, which was Invoked by the barons' committee on the 23rd March 2001 and reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davis on the 24th March 2001 under the title 'Peers Petition Queen on Europe'. The invocation of

Article 61 still stands to this very day as the lawful position of the English Isles and commonwealth. More evidence confirming that treason has and is being committed, is provided herein with regard to a PDF link of a compilation of scanned public records documents amounting to almost 300 pages entitled 'FCO 30/1048'. Within this compilation of signed and sometimes stamped documentation the evidence of both sedition and treason are proven. This information can be readily found on the internet for your perusal (see Exhibit E).

Furthermore, a transcript of a letter sent to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir which proved further evidence of Heath and Co's High Treason is provided herein (see Exhibit D). I now AFFIRM that all of the information herein is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and first hand experience, and that I am of lawful age and mentally competent to serve this 'Notice of Coercion to Aid and Abet High Treason & Misprision of treason'.

I hereby affix my common law name to all of the affirmations and claims made herein this document, with explicit reservations to all my natural, unalienable Sovereign Rights and Habeas Corpus, and to my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any hearing with regard to this matter(

s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land, in open forum, as this matter is of course in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with due process of law and my constitutional rights. Without Malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. WITH PREJUDICE.

Signed: [signature] else marie smart Witnessed by: Date: Oct 7 2020 1. [signature] Joyce Shenen 2. [signature] Elizabeth Zuk 3. Jacquie Phoenix [red ink fingerprint] [Exhibits omitted.] Appendix “B”: Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure [Crest Design, see From: else marie smart AVI #1 , Appendix “E”] Address: 11247 25 Avenue NW Edmonton AB T6J 4X5 To: John D Rooke doing business as Associate Chief Justice Calgary Address: 2600, 450 1st Street SW Calgary AB T2P 5H1 Served by recorded post. NOTICE TO STOP Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Dear John D Rooke Whereas I, else marie smart, stand fully under English and Commonwealth Constitutional law in defence of the Sovereignty of our nation at this time, which is to my understanding the lawful truth and duty of ALL English and Commonwealth subjects, and evidently so since

Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect on the 23rd March 2001 (see exhibits A &

B) and, that I have complied entirely within the law with 'lawful excuse' with regard to this matter (see exhibit C), that being in a peaceful and honourable manner thus far, by putting you John D Rooke on notice of the evidential facts in an attempt to remedy this matter lawfully, and to inform you of your own duties under English Constitutional law. By pledging an Oath of allegiance to the Committee of the barons whom invoked said article, it makes it my sworn duty to "distress" the present regime in any way I see fit, and this I do by 'Royal Command'.

To my understanding it is entirely unlawful to aid and abet the crown or ANY of its agents at this time. I therefore DEMAND that you do due diligence on this matter and STOP any further proceedings against me unless and until it has been evidenced that my understandings of the law are incorrect. I, else marie smart, has 'lawful excuse' to "distress and distrain" the present regime as I see fit until present constitutional wrongs have

been remedied. Proceeding against me SHALL make you personally liable for any torts or criminal acts committed against me , which will result in a counter-claim for extortion whilst demanding monies with menaces if you do not immediately stop further enforcement actions against me , whilst blatantly ignoring the evidenced facts herein/therein provided. Let me remind you that it is THE LAW that imposes these conditions on us ALL. You are therefore personally responsible for your acts and omissions under the law just like everybody else!

I have the right and duty to arrest you myself for your harassment and coercion to aid and abet treason, and I am quite willing and capable of doing so! The fact is that it is UNLAWFUL to aid and abet HIGH TREASON AT COMMON LAW and thus to adhere to the demands of the Alberta and Canada courts and affiliated commissions, agencies etc at this time is UNLAWFUL. Ignore the evidence presented at your own Peril.

If you continue to ignore the RELEVANT points of constitutional law herein/therein previous Notices served, and continue to harass me, then by your own stupidity and ignorance it shall be understood by all interested parties involved in this matter that you do so as a traitor to this country; are an outlaw with no protection under the law; that you are derisive and hostile toward me and the facts in law, which I have stated and evidenced, and are thus a danger to the public. And that any further actions taken against me shall be considered to be extremely serious and hostile criminal acts.

Any reply MUST be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury however, the time for correspondence is now over. Any further action taken by you against me shall be considered by me to be

an act of hostility within an evidenced war of aggression against the Sovereign people of this Realm and, which may be countered by myself and or others with the right and duty of self defence, and in defence of the Realm. Without any admission of liability whatsoever and with all my inalienable common law rights reserved. With extreme prejudice, written under duress and protest and on my full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

Maxim: "Actusme invito factus, non est meus actus." - 'An act done by me against my will, is not my act.' - Especially with regard to any hostile acts which may be necessary in self defence and or defence of the nation. Signed: [signature] else marie smart Witnessed by: Date: Nov 4, 2020 1. [signature] Joyce Shenen 2. [signature] Elizabeth Zuk 3. pp Jacquie Phoenix [signature] [Exhibits omitted.]