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.
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.
