International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 48
lifestyle of “do as I please,” and “take what I want”
(Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 180-183, 188 Netolitzky, 2023a,
pp. 818-820). Resistance and rejection of COVID-19
pandemic management steps is also commonplace.
However, MCLR theory is most frequently deployed
in minor social sanction processes and debt scenarios:
e.g., avoiding utility and telephone bills, refusing traffic
tickets and defying motor vehicle legislation, rejection
of government registration procedures, and refusal to
pay council (municipal) taxes. This petty dispute focus
extends to the MCLR leadership. Both Robinson (2017,
pp. 4, 6-7) and Phoenix (AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489,
para. 19) deployed MCLR techniques against motor
vehicle tickets and regulation steps. Phoenix’s “Lawful
Rebellion” was a failure--she was convicted. Robinson
admitted that he was the subject of arrest warrants
for unpaid council tax (Robinson, 2018a Robinson,
2018b).
Commonplace applications of MCLR theory are
therefore “overkill.” Overthrow of all established
authority and mass killings are “the solutions”
for comparatively minor personal issues. Active
enforcement and violence is then passed off to police,
via the “Lobby the Bobby” concept.
E. Leaders and Adherents
MCLR leadership is clearly defined. Robinson is the
MCLR’s creative guru messiah figure, though his
effectiveness in that role was, at best, limited. Robinson’s
pseudolaw theories are shallow and derivative. His
presentation of those concepts in the Laymans Guide
and other sources was amateurish and unsophisticated.
The available record shows that Robinson was
intolerant of internal and external challenge to his
ideas, but, unlike Phoenix, Robinson did not engage
in wholesale censorship of opposing statements and
criticism. Insults were Robinson’s preferred response.
With Robinson behind the wheel, the MCLR was, at
best, a marginal phenomenon, but one that interacted
with and referenced other activity by UK pseudolaw
elements. The Robinson MCLR was therefore part of a
broader anti-authority pseudolaw ecosystem.
Little is documented about Robinson himself, other
than he had at least one sibling (Phoenix, 2021a).
Based on his unsophisticated writing and “research,”
Robinson’s education and training were likely minimal.
Robinson self-reported that he was unemployable
due to muscular dystrophy, received Disabled Living
Allowance support (Robinson, 2018b), and existed
in a precarious economic state (Robinson, 2018c
Robinson, 2018d). Robinson exhibited a broad range
of conspiratorial beliefs, a commonplace characteristic
of pseudolaw adherents (Netolitzky, 2021). The
Laymans Guide (2017a, pp. 3-8) framed its techniques
in response to commonplace cultic milieu (Campbell,
1972) and improvisational millennialist (Barkun, 2013)
allegations of government, financial, and pedophiliac
conspiracies. Robinson’s social media posts include
stereotypic conspiratorial and QAnon type beliefs,
5G wireless threats, “chemtrails,” and that Robinson,
personally, was the target of covert energy technology
attacks (Robinson, 2017b Robinson, 2018b). Even
post-Brexit, Robinson continued to denounce
European Union influences.
Robinson’s post-death canonization is very much a
product of Phoenix’s reverential treatment of Robinson
and his ideas. Phoenix represented herself as Robinson’s
most faithful apostle, a Saul of Tarsus/St. Paul
character, carrying the sacred word outside the UK to
the Canadian philistines. Unlike St. Paul, Phoenix then
returned to Jerusalem/London, bearing a sword (or
a staff). Like Robinson, Phoenix tolerates no dissent
or disagreement, but enforces absolute orthodoxy in
communication networks that she controls. Until her
2021 “apocalyptic phase,” Phoenix’s “Redress” program
was a strict attempt to advance Robinson’s concepts.
Phoenix was born in Drumheller Alberta, and lived
in smaller communities known for “redneck” and
reactionary conservative politics. Like Robinson,
Phoenix has a marginal lifestyle based on government
assistance via the provincial Assured Income for the
Severely Handicapped program (Phoenix, 2019).
Phoenix’s social media does not indicate any substantive
affiliation with the many post-2000 Canadian
pseudolaw movements (reviewed in Netolitzky, 2016
Netolitzky, 2023a Netolitzky, 2023b). The MCLR was
Phoenix’s gateway into pseudolaw.
In many ways Phoenix is a peculiar guru. She is an
unremarkable individual, except for her increasingly
eccentric appearance and dress. Phoenix is an inept,
practically illiterate communicator, which is strange
given that text is her primary medium to recruit

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 49
followers. Unlike Robinson, Phoenix’s surface
demeanor and conduct is friendly, approachable, and
extremely enthusiastic. Phoenix has throughout been
a willing, if not eager, educator about MCLR theory
and documents. Most pseudolaw gurus avoid direct
interactions with courts (Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB
571, para. 80), but Phoenix put herself front and center,
and acted as an unauthorized legal representative in at
least one Canadian legal action, and was sanctioned
for that (AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 AVI v MHVB,
2020 ABQB 790).
Phoenix’s appeal may reflect that she is, in a great
many ways, a peer to her followers, sharing much the
same beliefs, politics, social status, education, and
conspiratorial perspectives. Like Robinson, Phoenix’s
social media shows long-standing endorsement of
conspiratorial, right-wing, anti-authority, QAnon,
anti-Islam, vaccine resistance, and crank health beliefs.
In person, however, Phoenix is difficult. Phoenix’s UK
hosts report much problematic conduct, including
disruptive, abusive, and intoxicated behaviour (e.g.,
Gregg, 2017 The Scottish Warrior, 2021). Phoenix has
also expressed profound experiences when she, in 2021,
visited UK locations associated with the Magna Carta,
a phenomenon that resembles “Jerusalem Syndrome”:
theatric, eccentric, and bizarre psychotic behaviour
exhibited by some devout Christians when attending
Middle-Eastern religious sites (Bar-El, 2018). During
this period, Phoenix reportedly sought to “ascend” to
join Robinson (The Scottish Warrior, 2021).
Mature cults develop a tier, or layer, of intermediate
apparatchiks between the central guru and the
follower masses (Joosse, 2017). Robinson may have
had a few such adjuncts (e.g., Robinson, 2020b), but
Phoenix made extensive use of second-tier delegated
authority followers, particularly as Facebook group
administrators to censor in-group communications,
enforce orthodoxy, and direct and reinforce adoration
aimed towards Phoenix and the now deceased prophet-
figure Robinson. These second-tier personalities also
acted as by-rote educators in MCLR techniques.
Once in the UK, Phoenix entered a more direct
relationship with these second-tier authorities, who
Phoenix publicly identified as providing logistical
assistance in organizing “Redress” meetings and
venues, transport, lodging for Phoenix, and probably
other domestic support functions. Second-tier MCLR
personalities had a high dropout rate, in certain
instances publicly withdrawing from the MCLR, saying
they were burned out, or had become disaffected with
Phoenix (Gregg, 2017).
Measuring pseudolaw populations is extremely difficult
(Netolitzky, 2016, p. 612 Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 807-
809). What is clear is the MCLR attracted an unusually
large volume of interested individuals:
• Robinson’s “Public Lawful Dissent” Facebook
group: 18,659 members
• Phoenix’s “Public Lawful Dissent International”
Facebook group: 44,278 members.16
In 2019 through early 2021, Phoenix’s group underwent
an explosive expansion, often adding thousands of
members per month.
Despite these apparently large numbers, there is good
reason to suspect that affiliation with the MCLR
phenomenon was often transient. First, the volume
of active participants in either Facebook group was
always limited. Second, despite strict censorship and
energetic moderation, clear evidence accumulated in
MCLR online communities that demonstrated MCLR
techniques simply did not work. Furthermore, a
substantial fraction of MCLR adherents never complete
their MCLR Three/Five Letters processes.17 These
factors suggest much apparent interest in the MCLR
was more curiosity than any substantial commitment.
Nevertheless, a significant number of people at some
point have engaged with the MCLR and its leaders. That
population is international, but primarily UK residents.
Phoenix published Facebook statistics about her group
that indicated most were women. MCLR adherents
chiefly communicated online there is little evidence
of “real world” interactions. MCLR documents require
three witnesses, and MCLR adherents often advertised
in social media, attempting to arrange “signing parties.”
Many in this movement identified the UK “Redress”
meetings with Phoenix as their first face-to-face peer
group interactions.
16 Numbers as of November 5, 2021.
17 Only slightly over half (54%, n=7) of MCLR adherents who sent
MCLR Three/Five Letters documents to judges and employees of the Alberta
Court of King’s Bench completed those processes.