A Pathogen Astride the Minds of Men: The Epidemiological History of Pseudolaw

Full text

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
1
A Pathogen Astride the Minds of Men:
The Epidemiological History of Pseudolaw
Donald J. Netolitzky
1
Paper delivered at the Centre d’expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes
religieux et la radicalisation (CEFIR) symposium: “Sovereign Citizens in
Canada”, Montreal, 3 May 2018
Abstract
Pseudolaw is a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be
law. Pseudolaw has independently emerged in different countries and
communities on multiple occasions. Despite that, modern pseudolaw world-
wide is remarkably similar, despite that pseudolaw host populations have
extremely different political, cultural, and historical profiles. What is
common among groups that endorse pseudolaw is: 1) an anti-government
and anti-institutional orientation, and 2) a conspiratorial world perspective.
Modern pseudolaw has spread, starting from the US Sovereign Citizen
population, and then infected a succession of other communities. This
progression was facilitated by key individuals and can be tracked, host group
to host group.
Modern pseudolaw was introduced into Canada by one individual, Eldon
Warman, who reframed its concepts to better suit a Commonwealth rather
than US context. Warman’s pseudolaw variation spread into several
Canadian communities with very different social objectives. The leftist anti-
government Freemen-on-the-Land then seeded pseudolaw into the UK, the
Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and several European
countries. Some of the resulting groups were stillborn, but in the UK
pseudolaw has thrived, but principally as mechanism to attack debt
collection, rather than to challenge government authority.
US Sovereign Citizen pseudolaw has also directly spread into the culturally
distinct urban black Moorish community, and the German and Austrian right-
wing Reichsbürger groups. Australia is unique in that its pseudolaw culture
incorporates US Sovereign Citizen, Canadian Freeman, and domestic
1
Donald J. Netolitzky (Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Alberta, 1995, LL.B.,
University of Alberta, 2005) is the Complex Litigant Management Counsel for the
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. The views expressed in this paper are those of the
author, and not those of any other member of the Court of Queen’s Bench, or the
Court itself.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
2
concepts. In other countries, the appearance of modern pseudolaw drove
other pre-existing variant law schemes into extinction.
I. Introduction
Pseudolaw are legal-sounding rules which purport to govern the operation of
governments, corporations, individuals, and courts. Two characteristics distinguish
pseudolaw from ‘real law’: pseudolaw leads to different results than ‘conventional’
law, and governments and courts do not recognize pseudolaw as valid.
That has not, however, dissuaded a substantial world-wide community from
deploying pseudolaw during their interactions with government, police, courts, and
institutions.
2
A perhaps counter-intuitive aspect of pseudolaw is that the pseudolaw
encountered in different countries is unexpectedly similar. The explanation for
those parallels is simple. In the late 1990s, a matrix of pseudolaw concepts, false
history, and conspiratorial narratives coalesced within the US Sovereign Citizen
community to form the Sovereign Citizen Pseudolaw Memeplex [Pseudolaw
Memeplex]. Those ideas then spread into other jurisdictions and host communities.
This paper’s companion (Netolitzky 2018d) describes the Pseudolaw Memeplex, its
foundation, rules, and function. The Pseudolaw Memeplex is a distinct legal system
that shifts the balance of authority and obligation in favour of individuals and away
from government and institutional actors. The Pseudolaw Memeplex has six key
elements:
1. Everything Is A Contract,
2. Silence Means Agreement,
3. No Injured Party,
4. Defective Or Limited State Authority,
5. the “Strawman” Duality, and
6. Fiscal Misconceptions.
Most of these concepts remain constant. Defective Or Limited State Authority is the
exception and varies to match the history and characteristics of the host population
(Netolitzky 2018d:II(B)(4)).
The Pseudolaw Memeplex is also a fundamentally conspiratorial construct. It asserts
that much or all government authority is illegitimate, but that fact is concealed from
2
Pseudolaw is only rarely used in interpersonal disputes (Netolitzky 2017:984-988;
Slater 2016:45-46).

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
3
the public for nefarious reasons. The real “Common Law”
3
is allegedly hidden to
enslave the masses.
This paper traces the transmission of the Pseudolaw Memeplex from the Sovereign
Citizen community and into different countries and populations. These ideas spread
much like a disease, from host-to-host, accumulating adaptations that then
facilitated new cycles of infection. During this process the Pseudolaw Memeplex
encountered other pre-existing regional or community-specific pseudolaw, which
had various consequences.
II. The Sovereign Citizen Incubator
The mature Pseudolaw Memeplex emerged from the US Sovereign Citizen
community. The Memeplex was tied together by the invention of the “Strawman”
concept around 1998-1999 (Netolitzky 2018b:III(C)(2)).
This paper does not investigate the ‘prehistory’ of the Pseudolaw Memeplex. US
pseudolaw ideas date back decades, and plausibly into the 1800s (Berger 2016:7-
13). Pseudolaw incubated in a succession of marginal, right-wing, white, and often
racist communities, including the Christian Identity churches, the Posse Comitatus
movement, Militia groups, the Montana Freemen, and Tax Protestors (Bell 2016;
Berger 2016; Kent 2015; Mallek 2016).
Legal academics investigated the state of pseudolaw in the 1990s (for example:
Koniak 1996; Jackson 1996; Smith 1997; Vaché and DeForrest 1997; Sullivan 1999).
Little attention was apparently placed on pseudolaw’s mechanics and theory prior
to that point, though pseudolaw’s host populations were sometimes described (for
example: Corcoran 1990; Barkun 1994).
The Sovereign Citizen Defective Or Limited State Authority explanation was that US
Federal government authority could be rejected by opting out of US citizenship,
which allegedly was imposed by the 1868 14th Amendment (Netolitzky
2018d:II(B)(4)). Individuals then revert to state citizen status, which purportedly is
only governed by “Common Law”. The US citizen vs state citizen distinction is
explicitly racist; only whites may ‘opt out’ of US citizenship.
The Sovereign Citizen movement remains active to the present. Some observers
suggest its host population has expanded beyond its rural, conservative, and racist
roots (Bell 2016; Mallek 2016). This community receives surprisingly little public,
government, or media attention (Slater 2017:4-11). Most reporting is from the Anti-
Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Centre, which is sometimes of
questionable value. For example, the widely reported population estimate of
300,000 is, at best, dubious (Mallek 2016:61-68).
3
Common Law (without quotes) identifies the UK-derived legal tradition, while
“Common Law” (in quotes) indicates the mythical pseudolegal natural law based on
Christian and/or medieval traditions (Netolitzky 2018d).

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
4
Arguably, the powerful anti-government perspective espoused by the Sovereign
Citizen movement is no longer even all that unusual. Slatter (2016:61-65) observes
that regardless of the dominant party in power, the recent broad disillusionment
with US government as a whole validates theories that the current regime is a
conspiracy-produced aberration.
III. The Pathogen Spreads - The First Wave of Infections
The Pseudolaw Memeplex almost immediately spread into several new
communities and jurisdictions.
A. United States - The Moorish Law Phenomenon
In a curious development which epidemiologists would call an “interspecies leap”,
racist and white-supremacist Sovereign Citizen pseudolaw translocated into a
foreign and unlikely host: a largely urban African-American population. A much
smaller spinoff community exists in Canada (Perry et al 2017:32). This Moorish Law
Phenomenon [MLP], has been the subject of only limited academic investigation to
date (Slatter 2016:11). The following description should be viewed with caution.
The MLP teaches that African-American populations have special extralegal rights.
MLP pseudolaw’s primary divergence from the Sovereign Citizen Pseudolaw
Memeplex is several unique Defective Or Limited State Authority motifs. Most are
fanciful.
One explanation for immunity to government authority is that African-Americans
were pre-European contact inhabitants of North and South America. Indians, Inuit
and other aboriginal populations are sometimes characterized as second-wave
interlopers. A keystone to this concept are the allegedly African features of the
Mesoamerican Olmec colossal stone heads (Hypnotique Olmec Punch 2016;
Anonymous n.d.). Other purported evidence are colonial-era records that allegedly
identify pre-contact black populations. Dwight York’s Nuwaubians argued they were
a sovereign Indian community from at least the early 1990s (Palmer 2016:68, 71-
72, 116, 146-147). A Canadian follower of York, Sean Henry (a.k.a. Chief Nanya-
Shaabu: El), continues to promote this concept (Meads v Meads 2012:paras. 189-
193).
A related MLP concept is some African-Americans are the descendants and rightful
owners of traditional Washitaw Native American lands in the Louisiana area
(Netolitzky 2018d:II(B)(4)).
A third explanation used by an offshoot of the Moorish Science Temple relies on the
1787 Moorish American Peace and Friendship Treaty between the US and the
Barbary pirate states as a basis to claim immunity (Netolitzky 2018d:II(B)(4)).
Though it makes little sense, some MLP advocates simply use the Sovereign Citizen
14th Amendment concept for African-American persons (Netolitzky
2018d:II(B)(4)).

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
5
Exactly how Sovereign Citizen ideas were imported into the MLP’s host populations
is unclear. Palmer reports collaboration in 1999 between the Nuwaubians and
“Montana Freemen” (2016:80, 101-105), including a self-proclaimed “common law
judge” Everett Leon Stout. Stout clearly is a Sovereign Citizen (Morlin 2016; US v
Stout 2001), but how this ideologically unnatural alignment occurred is difficult to
understand.
Like the Sovereign Citizens, the MLP remains highly active at present, and may
actually represent the majority of pseudolaw affiliates in the US. Unfortunately,
many commentators combine these two socially distinct communities under the
Sovereign Citizen label.
B. Canada
The history and status of the pseudolaw phenomenon in Canada is increasingly well
documented by academic commentary (Netolitzky 2016a; Netolitzky 2016b;
Netolitzky 2017; Netolitzky 2018a; Perry et al 2017), detailed judgments (for
example Meads v Meads 2012), and impressive research activities by ‘hobbyist
critics’ on the Quatloos forum (Quatloos).
Canadian pseudolaw had two sources: Canada-specific concepts developed from the
1950s onward in the PreDetaxer community, and Sovereign Citizen motifs
introduced into Canada around 2000 (Netolitzky 2016a). This hybridization
resulted in two distinct and separate pseudolaw movements: the Detaxers and the
Freemen-on-the-Land.
1. PreDetaxer Pseudolaw and Early US Influences
The PreDetaxer period traces from the 1950s to the late 1990s. Entry of the modern
US Pseudolaw Memeplex into Canada around 1999-2000 is a useful waypoint to
mark the end of this period in Canadian pseudolaw.
During the PreDetaxer phase, Canadian pseudolaw mainly attempted to avoid
income tax (Netolitzky 2016a:613-616). Arguments included ‘gaming’ income tax
returns, ‘loophole’ strategies, and that government lacked a constitutional authority
to demand payment of income tax (Netolitzky 2016a:613-616, 619-623; Netolitzky
2018a:V(B-C)).
The first two concept groups had no associated historical mythos or overarching
element of conspiracy. However, the constitutional arguments grew increasingly
sophisticated over time and built on a deeper narrative, that British authorities had
intentionally concealed the supposedly independent Canada still remained a colony
(Netolitzky 2016a:615-616; R v Meikle 2003:paras. 23-26).
Some US pseudolaw did enter into Canada during the PreDetaxer period.
Saskatchewan Social Credit politician Joseph A. Thauberger introduced US fractional
banking Fiscal Misconception conspiracy theory in the 1990s ‘Canadianized’ version
(Thauberger n.d.) of the Christian Identity pamphlet Billions for the Bankers, Debts
for the People (Barkun 1994:205). These same ideas were promoted as early as the

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
6
mid-1980s in newsletters published by Ontario pseudolaw guru Thomas Joseph
Kennedy (a.k.a. “Tommy UsuryFree Kennedy”).
“Travelling” concepts (d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen 2018:paras 71-86) also
entered into Canada independently, probably in the late 1990s, via Ernst Kybruz,
David Kevin Lindsay, and Eldon Warman (Netolitzky 2016a:620-621; R v Lindsay
1999; Lindsay 1999). These concepts were immediately ‘localized’. Lindsay
explicitly warned US authorities are potentially influential but not binding (Lindsay
1999:130-134). Warman cited a 1909 British Columbia case that allegedly provides
the legal authority in Canada for unrestricted motor vehicle use.
4
2. Patient Zero - Eldon Gerald Warman
A specific single individual, Eldon Gerald Warman (Netolitzky 2016a:617-618),
introduced the US Pseudolaw Memeplex into Canada. Warman’s first exposure to
pseudolaw concepts was in the US working as an airline pilot. His wife committed
suicide during a dispute with the US Internal Revenue Service. Warman fled to
Canada.
Though Warman is best known as a Detaxer guru, his only reported court judgments
document Warman’s 1999 trial for assaulting a police officer after Warman was
stopped while driving a busload of Taiwanese tourists (R v Warman 2000). This case
reached the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which characterized Warman’s
arguments as a global rejection of court and state authority (R v Warman 2001).
Warman described himself as a student of “Roger Elvick, Inns of Law of Wisconsin”.
When Warman first began teaching Pseudolaw Memeplex concepts in Canada is
unclear. In 1999-2000 Warman claimed his Detaxing system had been used
successfully for 14 years (Muljiana 2000:13), but the first court decision that
reports Warman’s ideas responded to 1999-2000 anti-tax activities (R v Proteau
2000). Warman was touring and giving seminars in 2000 (Lethbridge 2000). His
Detaxer website operated from at least late 1998.
Warman’s early concepts circa 2000 were reconstructed from the archived Detax
Canada website (Detax Canada) and Becoming Free of the Canada Income Tax Act
(Muljiani 2000), a book authored by Warman’s collaborator “Rev. Alex Muljini, the
“Untaxman”” (Netolitzky 2016a:618), though Muljiani indicates Warman personally
wrote most of the text.
All six of the key Pseudolaw Memeplex motifs are present in these sources.
Government authority comes from contract (R v Warman 2001:para. 6), filing an
income tax return, which is an “assumpsit contract” Invisible Contract trap that can
be avoided with a disclaimer (Muljiani 2000:16-17, 21, 25, 41, 50, 58). No statute
can (allegedly) impose a contract that mandates “the forfeiture of Common Law
4
R v Chong 1909. This case actually addressed whether a municipal bylaw could
prohibit a food peddler from selling his products outside certain hours. How this
relates to Travelling is unclear.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
7
rights of a natural person”, including purported unlimited rights to property and
freedom to travel (Muljiani 2000:19, 41, 52-54). One must “void” or not accept
correspondence from the Canada Revenue Agency (Muljiani 2000:22). Never cite
the Canadian Constitution or Charter in court, but instead deny the “Strawman”
“nom de guerre”, claim “Common Law” status, and say “I Stand Mute” and nothing
more (Muljiani 2000:42-45, 60).
An individual’s true rights and liberties are defined by “Common Law (God’s Law or
Natural Law)”, “Anglo-Saxon Common Law”, and the Magna Carta, which have
supraconstitutional status (Muljiani 2000:41-43, 52-55, 58; R v Warman 2000:paras.
4-6; R v Warman 2001:para. 6). Warman explains:
The governments of Canada and the USA were convinced by the
international bankers (as part of the plans for the United Nations One-
World government scheme) to do an "end run" around the "Law of the
Land," the Saxon Common Law, by imposing a form of Admiralty Law
as an obligation of contract ... (Muljiani 2000:58)
Warman broadly denounced Canadian governments as invalid due to alleged
Constitutional defects, most of which are PreDetaxer concepts, or combine
PreDetaxer and US schemes, for example that the “Federal parliament of Canada” is
a “pseudo-Roman corporation”, that was ““decommissioned” by the Statute of
Westminster (1931).” (Muljiani 2000:41-45, 54, 60). Warman instead proposed a
new constitution, the Magna Carta Kanata.
Warman’s “Strawman”, a “legal entity (artificial person)” called a “taxpayer”, is
“hypothecated” onto natural men (human beings) via a “presumption” (Muljiani
2000:14, 17-18). Escape from the “hypothecated slave position” requires a “trespass
warning”, which voids “the supposed contract that made you a taxpayer” (Muljiani
2000:14, 21, 47-49). Upper case letter names indicate a “fictional or legal entity”, or
“fictitious person”; a “Common Law” name uses the dash-colon structure, e.g. “John-
Fitzgerald: Kennedy” (Muljiani 2000:25-26, 45-46, 50; R v Warman 2001:para. 6).
State authority is limited to “fictitious persons”, and the Crown cannot charge “a
natural person of commoner status” (Muljiani 2000:41-45; R v Warman 2001:paras
6-7).
Warman describes a “Common Law” court proceeding where a published
newspaper notice creates a default judgment via Silence Means Agreement, without
ever involving a judge (Muljiani 2000:31-32).
The Pseudolaw Memeplex No Injured Party rule receives less attention, but is
present in Warman’s Detax Canada discussion of “Travelling” and because “You are
protected by the Common Law, which requires proof of “probable cause” - damage
to a person or property, to put you on trial.” (Muljiani 2000:31-32, 41, 52-53).
Warman’s anti-tax methodology and narrative includes all the key elements of the
Pseudolaw Memeplex, but Warman has extensively adapted the US-specific aspects
to Canada’s particular background. He identifies parallels between how Americans
and Canadians have both been denied their “Common Law” status and liberties, but
the mechanisms for that oppression are distinct. Warman explains the US

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
8
“Strawman” motif and upper-case letter name, but distinguishes Canada from the
US, since (allegedly) in the US a Social Security Number is what creates government
authority and ‘attaches’ the “Strawman”, but in Canada a birth certificate has that
function. Warman identifies US/Canada parallels in fractional banking conspiracy
theories, foisted unilateral agreements, and the (allegedly) despotic imposition of
non-“Common Law” authority (Muljiani 2000:20, 32, 54, 58).
Warman’s ideas dramatically affected Canadian pseudolaw, ‘localizing’ the
Pseudolaw Memeplex for a new jurisdiction. He (correctly) saw his knowledge and
approach as radically different from PreDetaxer gurus, and criticized their
techniques as worthless, hinting those programs were sponsored by the Canada
Revenue Agency itself (Muljiani 2000:15, 19). Warman, nevertheless, accepted and
employed the PreDetaxer defective constitution narrative.
One commonplace US concept is missing: A4V, then called “Redemption”. Warman
was almost certainly aware of Elvick’s A4V theories, so why then did he not also
teach those? Perhaps Warman saw no need to invoke that concept. His objective was
to avoid paying income tax, and thus he was not, ultimately, concerned with how the
Canadian government (allegedly) monetized itself.
3. Post-Pseudolaw Memeplex Detaxers
While Warman is a critical vector in the international spread of pseudolaw into
Canada and then other Commonwealth countries, he appears to have had limited
marketplace success, and repeatedly threatened to take his knowledge and services
offline. His Detax Canada website remained available until Warman’s death in 2017.
Warman’s Detaxer acolyte Alex Muljiani had a comparatively short guru career,
from 1999-2002 (Netolitzky 2016a:618). A written notice of Muljiani’s “retirement”
observed people in the “detax and freedom movement were angry and/or broke”, so
Muljiani was moving on to a “Matrix Master Program” of “comprehensive financial
and wealth strategy” (Muljiani 2002).
Muljiani’s direct successor, Russell Porisky of the Paradigm Education Group,
operated a sophisticated multi-level marketed “Strawman”-based anti-tax scam
until 2008 (Netolitzky 2016:622-23; Netolitzky 2018a:IV(C)). Paradigm Education
Group Pseudolaw Memeplex concepts were all but entirely ‘localized’ to match
Canadian law and legislation. The Paradigm Education Group represented the high-
point of the Detaxer phenomenon in Canada, but was followed by one more major
Detaxer scam, “Fiscal Arbitrators”, that operated from 2008-2010 (Netolitzky
2018:IV(A)). Fiscal arbitrators applied “Strawman” theory in an unsophisticated
manner. Promoters prepared tax returns where the ‘human’ half claimed the
“Strawman” doppelganger as a business expense. Many persons who subscribed to
the Fiscal Arbitrators scheme said it never made any sense to them. They were in it
for the money alone.
The Detaxer movement appears dead. It’s last guru, David Kevin Lindsay (Netolitzky
2016:621-622), recently complained that Canadian pseudolaw affiliates and gurus
incorrectly use US legal (and pseudolegal) concepts, are ignorant of the real law, and

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
9
file “garbage materials” that are invalid and meaningless (Freedom Free For All
2016). That has led to unfavourable and binding judgments against pseudolaw
concepts.
4. Robert Arthur Menard and the Freemen-on-the-Land
The Pseudolaw Memeplex also entered into a second, distinct Canadian pseudolaw
community: the Freemen-on-the-Land (Netolitzky 2016:624-627; Netolitzky
2018a:IV(A); Perry et al 2017). Unlike the Detaxers, who were comparatively
apolitical, Freemanism is hosted by an anti-government population with a
politically-leftist, “Green”, anti-globalization, social activist, and marijuana-advocacy
orientation.
The Freeman-on-the-Land movement was the product of a single key guru: Robert
Arthur Menard. Menard’s mature version of pseudolaw includes all the components
of the Pseudolaw Memeplex (Menard 2004; Menard 2011). The “Strawman”
“person” is linked to birth documentation, and Menard taught a human may deny
consent to that Invisible Contract and state authority via Silence Means Agreement
of a “Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right”. That, purportedly, leaves
the Freeman only subject to “Common Law”.
Recent investigation has clarified the origin of Menard’s pseudolaw. Menard in 2000
on the Cannabis Culture forum recites Detaxer Pseudolaw Memeplex concepts with
language that is unique to Warman’s theories (Cannabis Culture 2000). Menand says
“Common Law” and the “Magne Carta” are superior law. He identifies Muljiani and
Warman as sources. This discussion contrasts 2000-era US Sovereign Citizen
“Strawman” and Montana Freeman theory to what Menard was taught by Detaxer
sources.
Menard therefore entered pseudolaw as a student of right-wing and racist Detaxer
teachers, but his deeper commitment to pseudolaw developed in the next several
years during a dispute between Menard and child welfare authorities over access to
and custody of a child of a teenaged partner, Megan. Menard’s initial guru activity
focused on how birth documentation allegedly authorizes state control of children
(Menard n.d.a.; Menard n.d.b.). Menard soon expanded his claims; he could
immunize persons from Canadian law as a whole. The result is ‘Freeloader-on-the-
Land’ status. The Freeman ignores their social and legal obligations, but still takes
advantage of Canadian services and infrastructure (Netolitzky 2018b:III(C)(3)).
Menardian Freemanism has little intellectual or documentary foundation; Menard
simply restates pseudolaw propositions as fact. For example, Canadian Freemanism
never developed a sophisticated Defective Or Limited State Authority theory. In his
final book, With Lawful Excuse, Menard makes a bald claim that when Queen Victoria
died Canada was salvaged as a corporation operated by bankers in London
(2011:23). Later he claims Canada is a US corporation (Menard 2011:39, 97),
provincial governments are a “legal fiction” (Menard 2011:45-48), and finally
Menard references PreDetaxer theories that Canada’s constitutional process was
defective (Menard 2011:136-140).

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
10
Menard’s effective use of social media (Netolitzky 2016:626; Perry et al 2017:15-16)
is probably a major factor why Freeman-on-the-Land ideology became widely
distributed despite it being a superficial and ‘dumbed down’ variation of the
Pseudolaw Memeplex. Though Perry et al (2017:34-44) report a complex mixed
host population, the main courtroom application of Freeman pseudolaw is to
legitimize illegal activity; arguably, Canadian Freemanism is chiefly a criminal
culture (Netolitzky 2018a:14-18).
Post-2010, the Freeman phenomenon in Canada has undergone a marked decline,
likely due to the persistent failure of its concepts (Netolitzky 2016:626-627; Perry et
al 2017:16-18). New emergent gurus attempting to replace the now largely absent
Menard have met with little success. The most promising candidate, “John Spirit”,
used ideas from actual Canadian legal resources to develop pseudolaw concepts far
more sophisticated than those propagated by Menard, but that proved a two-edged
sword when Spirit’s concepts were refuted in court (Netolitzky 2018c:III(C)).
The future of Freemanism in Canada is, at best, uncertain (Netolitzky 2018c:III(C-
E)).
III. Tertiary Infections
A. The UK and Ireland
Canadian Freeman pseudolaw reached the UK and Republic of Ireland in the late
2000s (Kent 2015:8-11). Warman’s reframing of the Pseudolaw Memeplex into a
Commonwealth-compatible form meant less adaptation and evolution was required
to employ these ideas in UK and Irish contexts. Early local promoters cite Menard
but also Mary Elizabeth Croft, a Canadian Freeman pseudolaw guru who promoted a
combination of Fiscal Misconception and “Strawman” concepts in a chatty but
unfocussed 2007 text with a strong New Age component (Croft 2007).
1. The Republic of Ireland
Unlike many other jurisdictions, pseudolaw in the Republic of Ireland is
documented by substantial academic and professional commentary (Rooney 2011;
Keys 2014a; Keys 2014b; Sammon 2015; Barry and ÓDrisceoil 2017). That may be
attributed to the emergence of what are stereotypically marginalized ideas into
mainstream Irish politics and communities.
The “Tir na Saor” website (Tir na Saor n.d.a.), which operated from 2009-2016, was
a major community hub for the pseudolaw phenomenon. The website’s resources
show a clear Canadian Freeman-on-the-Land influence, citing key Freeman
authorities Menard and Croft, but also early UK guru John Harris and prominent US
A4V theorist Winston Shrout.
Tir na Saor published a 23-page Freeman Guide (Tir na Saor n.d.b.), which is a brief
but surprisingly comprehensive overview of the Pseudolaw Memeplex, including:

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
11
1. “Strawman” theory, which is identified as “the Person” or “the Straw
Man” (Tir na Saor n.d.b.:6-9, 11, 18-19);
2. Silence Means Agreement, and Invisible Contracts (Tir na Saor
n.d.b.:9-12, 20-21);
3. the No Injured Party rule (Tir na Saor n.d.b.:4, 11-12), and
4. the Banks Create Money Fiscal Misconception conspiracy theory (Tir
na Saor n.d.b.:13-14).
Government authority via the “Strawman” is countered by a Canadian Freeman-on-
the-Land style “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” (Tir na Saor
n.d.b.:20-22).
Interestingly, even by this early point, the Pseudolaw Memeplex had adapted to its
new locus with Ireland-specific Defective Or Limited State Authority motifs
referencing the 1937 constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) (Sammon 2015:93) and
traditional “Brehon” law. The Freeman Guide (Tir na Saor n.d.b.:4) stresses that
Brehon Law, and not “Common Law”, is the ancient and original ‘underlying’ law of
Ireland:
During the Brehon Law system there was No Police Force, No Capital
Punishment and No Judicial System as we know it today. These were
‘unnecessary’ institutions to the Peaceful inhabitants of the Land.
Brehon Law is the Law of Man and is in many ways superior to
Common Law. Common Law is in actuality a foreign jurisdiction and
you have a Right to claim Brehon Law! ... [Emphasis in original.]
Note the description of Brehon Law parallels the ahistorical “Common Law” as
antecedent and superior law.
Other Irish pseudolaw sources challenged residential and property taxes and utility
charges (Attack the Tax; Keys 2014a:232; Keys 2014b:256-257, 261), or purported
to offer protection against state and institutional actors by copyright and/or
trademark of one’s personal name (Copyright Your Name; Keys 2014b:261; Gleeson
v Tazbell Services Group 2015).
The first known instances of pseudolaw in Irish courts are circa 2010, with “Stephen
of the Family Sutton” and “Bobby of the Family Sludds” challenging motor vehicle
prosecutions with unremarkable Travelling arguments (Rooney 2011:12-13;
Sammon 2015:91; Keys 2014a:232; lreland & the Attorney General 2016).
However, most reported Irish cases and media commentary indicates a different
litigation focus. After a period of intense real property speculation, distressed
property owners faced a “real-estate bubble” which drastically reduced property
values. Between 2007 and 2010 house prices dropped 35%, with the sharpest drop
in 2009. 31% of these properties were worth less than the mortgage debt owed
(Kennedy and Calder 2011).
This sudden stress led to broad-based application of pseudolaw concepts, and the
emergence of pseudolaw promoters who focused specifically on mortgage issues

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
12
(for example: Common Law Society). Borrowers reneged on their mortgages,
arguing the fractional reserve banking Fiscal Misconception, purported formal
contract defects, and a novel tort: “reckless lending” (Sammon 2015:92-93; Keys
2014a:233-235; Keys 2014b:257-259; Barry and ÓDrisceoil 2017:44-45).
Substantial litigation followed: over 100 cases argued on that basis in 2012-2013
(Barry and ÓDrisceoil 2017:46).
Another unusual phenomenon was the appearance in 2013 of the “Rodolphus Allen
Family Private Trust” (Sammon 2015:91; Keys 2014b:259-260), a pseudolaw-based
entity, with as many as 2000 subscribers, which promised distressed mortgage
holders immunity to foreclosure (Ryan 2013). Charlie Allen, its promoter, was
arrested after making property claims based on “Strawman” concepts (Costello
2015). Unsurprisingly, this defence proved ineffective: “utterly meaningless in law
but whose purpose was not to impress a court or a lawyer.” (Reynolds v McDermott
2014).
The most striking development was the appearance of a Freeman-on-the-Land
political party, Direct Democracy Ireland, led by Ben Gilroy. In 2013 Gilroy was
promoting anti-foreclosure pseudolaw concepts, including the Rodolphus Allen
Family Private Trust. Direct Democracy Ireland and Gilroy organized public protests
and confrontations at properties being seized. Gilroy was ultimately convicted for
those activities (Reynolds v McDermott 2014). While Direct Democracy Ireland has
never elected a candidate, Gilroy in 2013 did personally attract a substantial
number of votes (6.5%) and placed fourth. 2013 was the high point for Gilroy and
his party, which now has a marginal presence. Gilroy resigned as leader, but his
hostility and rejection of the court apparatus continued. In 2017 Gilroy was
convicted of criminal contempt, “nothing short of a direct attack on the court and
the administration of justice”, for his criticism of judges as criminals and members
of a “semi-secretive society” (Allied Irish Banks plc v McQuaid 2017).
The transient appearance of pseudolaw in mainstream Irish politics was the high-
water mark for pseudolaw concepts. The Freeman phenomenon in the Republic of
Ireland appears to be in decline, with little activity on its social media websites, and
the Tir na Saor, Attack the Tax, and Copyright Your Name websites offline.
5
Nevertheless, pseudolaw-based attempts to evade debts and foreclosure continue in
Irish courts with depressing frequency, much to the irritation of the judiciary (for
example Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Martin 2017).
2. The UK
The state of the pseudolaw phenomenon in the UK is difficult to evaluate. Academic
commentary is limited (Kent 2015), and lower UK courts only rarely issue reported
decisions. That said, there is clear evidence of an active pseudolaw community using
concepts chiefly derived from Canadian Freeman-on-the-Land sources.
5
Last archived websites November 1, 2016, January 19, 2016, July 29, 2017,
respectively.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
13
“The People’s United Community” [TPUC] appeared in 2007 as a group opposed to
taxation, European integration, and the Conservative government, but soon after
advanced Menardian Freeman pseudolaw. The interests and concerns exhibited by
the TPUC membership strongly resemble those of the Canadian Freeman
population. Freeman ideas also spilled into the UK Occupy movement (Kent 2015:8-
11).
TPUC’s dominant personality, John Harris, popularized “Strawman” theory via
seminars and recorded videos. Harris also introduced a new UK-specific Defective
Or Limited State Authority concept: “Lawful Rebellion”. Allegedly, a Freeman could
write the Queen and invoke Clause 61 of the Magna Carta to negate Royal (and
government) authority. The defect with this theory is Clause 61 empowers 25
Barons to restrict the monarch, but nowhere mentions “lawful rebellion” (British
Library 2014). Harris committed suicide in June 2015 after having apparently
abandoned his pseudolaw beliefs, which he indicated had alienated him from and
harmed his family (Harris n.d.).
Other UK gurus combine the Lawful Rebellion Defective Or Limited State Authority
motif with Three/Five Letters procedures (Netolitzky 2018d:II(B)(2)) which use
Everything Is A Contract and Silence Means Agreement (for example: A Lawful Rebel
2015; British Constitution Group; Lawful Rebellion; People’s Coalition). Members of
the British Constitution Group even attempted to arrest a judge (Keys 2014a).
Curiously, two prominent UK Freeman gurus are transsexuals: Veronica Chapman
(FMOTL.com) and Keith Thompson a.k.a. “Kate of Gaia” (losethename.com;
kateofgaia.net). Chapman openly acknowledges the Canadian Freeman origin of her
concepts (Chapman 2009:60), while Thompson is an expatriate Canadian Freeman
who now advances a unique New Age flavoured variation on “Strawman” theories
(Netolitzky 2018b:IV(B)(3)).
Unlike Canada where Freemen primarily use pseudolaw to justify illegal and
criminal activity, money is the main focus of UK Freeman-derived pseudolaw:
avoiding council tax, motor vehicle registration and insurance, television licencing
fees, mortgages, and other debts.
For example, the Get Out Of Debt Free website (Getoutofdebtfree) operated by John
Witterick and Mark “Ceylon” Haining between 2008-2017
6
promised to eliminate
debts via Three/Five Letters, A4V, and promissory note processes. This unusually
professional website, which identified Canadian guru Croft as its key inspiration,
offered ‘localized’ national textbooks and paperwork, and also was a social locus for
pseudolaw in the UK. The WeReBank is another unique UK pseudolaw institution
responding to economic stress, offering subscribers blank cheques to pay off large
sums via promissory note Financial Misconception theories (Netolitzky
2018d:II(B)(6)).
6
Witterick sold the website in 2017 to a more conventional debt-related service.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
14
Pseudolaw appears entrenched in the UK as a purported mechanism to address
financial stresses, and perceived government excess and intrusions. UK Freemen
now have a social and political perspective that is more comparable to the US
Sovereign Citizens than their Canadian Freemen-on-the-Land precursors. For
example, a comparatively new UK group, “The White Pendragons” (Take Back
Control; The People’s Bailiffs), combine pseudolaw with broad-based anti-
government, bank, immigrant, and Islam rhetoric. This group recently attempted a
citizen’s arrest of London Mayor Sadiq Khan (Selk 2018).
The economic, social, and political stresses in the UK as it exits the EU and faces
immigration issues suggests the Pseudolaw Memeplex will likely remain popular in
this jurisdiction, given its conspiratorial narrative and promised (pseudo)legal
benefits.
B. Africa
The Pseudolaw Memeplex has a branch in South Africa, however the size and nature
of its host population is apparently undocumented. The Giftoftruth website initially
showed Canadian and UK influences, but its more recent sources are American
(Giftoftruth).
South African Michael Tellinger (Netolitzky 2016a:631) toured world-wide and
promoted “Ubuntu Contributionism”, which included Fiscal Misconception ‘money
for nothing’ theories. Tellinger’s UBUNTU political party participated in the 2014
and 2016 South African elections, but its current status is unclear.
C. Europe
The Freeman phenomenon has also spread into Europe, though there is little
evidence of any success. In Norway, a clearly Canada-derived Freeman group has
apparently already gone extinct (Netolitzky 2018c). Websites for Freeman groups in
the Netherlands (Sovereignfreeman.com; Ikclaimmingnaam.nl; Dereunie.info) and
Belgium (Ikclaimmijnaam.be) show little or no recent activity. The apparently low
viability of these branches of Freemanism is plausibly due to their not having
developed an appropriate Defective Or Limited State Authority argument suitable to
these Civil Law jurisdictions.
IV. Germany and Austria
The Reichsbürger community in Germany emerged in the 1980s and developed a
wealth of pseudolegal Defective Or Limited State Authority theories that challenge
conventional state authority (Netolitzky 2018d:II(B)(4)). Reichsbürgers typically set
up an alternative government apparatus, issued ID and documentation, reinstating
what the Reichsbürgers argue is the true surviving state authority, and in the
process rejecting their ‘conventional’ social and legal obligations (Wilking 2015).
Gurus teach concepts on a commercial basis, and vigilante police and courts are
known (Wilking 2015:217; Reisinger 2016).

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
15
The Pseudolaw Memeplex was only introduced into Germany decades later, but
exactly how is unclear. A Reichsbürger scheme to ‘opt out’ of state authority via self-
government and international law first appeared in 2009 (Wilking 2015:118-120).
The One People’s Public Trust [OPPT] is a vector that introduced US-style
Pseudolaw Memeplex concepts into Germany (Wilking 2015:127-129; Reisinger
2016). The OPPT, founded in 2012, combined Sovereign Citizen pseudolaw with
New Age perspectives, and promised vast wealth for subscribers after it (allegedly)
seized governments and banks (Netolitzky 2018c:II(A)(3)). An Austrian OPPT-
affiliated vigilante police and court group appeared in 2014 (Bundesstelle für
Sektenfragen 2014:69-95).
The WeReBank has also garnered substantial German interest. Reichsbürgers now
reference Pseudolaw Memeplex gurus from the US, Canada, and the UK (Wilking
2015:222; Reisinger 2016).
In Germany pseudolaw serves its usual functions. Everything Is A Contract and the
“Strawman” “legal persons” imposed on “Reich Citizens” explains the authority of
the Federal German Republic government (Casper and Neubauer 2012:534; Wilking
2015:122-125). Name structures and capitalization differentiate these entities
(Wilking 2015:215). Silence Means Agreement is used to foist results against
government actors (Wilking 2015:100-101), an attractive strategy since the German
Commercial Code in law dictates that Silence Means Agreement in certain
circumstances (Wilking 2015:211).
Estimates of the Reichsbürger and German/Austrian Freeman populations range up
to 15,000 (DW 2017a; DW 2017b). Pseudolaw users are ‘freeloaders’ who avoid
state obligation (Wilking 2015:95-96). These groups exhibit several ideologies
(Wilking 2015). Some are marginalized persons dislocated by German re-unification
and social change. These Reichsbürgers are dogmatic, right-wing, anti-government,
xenophobic, and racist. Others have a more esoteric or utopian focus. Deep
conspiratorial belief is universal. At present, pseudolaw appears to be gaining
strength in Germany and Austria, which has triggered a substantial government and
police response (DW 2017a; DW 2017b).
V. Australia and New Zealand
A complete review of the history and kinds of pseudolaw in Australia and New
Zealand is beyond the scope of this paper. No substantive academic review has
occurred, but courts in these jurisdictions have published a wealth of reported
decisions (Australia: 146; New Zealand: 35). That case law and other resources
indicate that pseudolaw in these jurisdictions has multiple sources, both domestic
and foreign, and that foreign pseudolaw has repeatedly been introduced into these
nations.
Unlike Canada, Australia never developed large-scale pseudolaw movements
organized around a key personality. Instead, Australian pseudolaw culture involves
numerous, often flamboyant, but eccentric, personalities, who either appear to be

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
16
solo actors, or are the focus of small, often short-lived groups. Their litigation is
more a personal crusade, than organized social activity, for example:
• Alan Skyring since the 1980s advanced a unique Australian theory that
Australian law is inoperative because the only valid currency is gold and
silver coins (Jones v Skyring 1992).
• Ex-police officer Wayne Glew, “The Talking Bulldog”, engaged in extensive
personal litigation that flowed from conflicts with local authorities and an
invention dispute.
7
He alleged constitutional defects, said he is a Freeman-
on-the-Land, and had not contracted with the “corporation of Australia”.
• Starting in 2008, Frank O’Collins built UCADIA, a massive website that is free-
standing alternative infrastructure for law, natural and human history, and
political and cultural organization (Netolitzky 2018c:III(C)).
• Brenden Lee O’Connell was convicted of anti-Semitic hate activities, despite
his claim that he was a “free man” and the Australian government had no
authority over him because it was a corporation (O’Connell v The State of
Western Australia 2012).
Some Australian pseudolaw is clearly ‘local’, for example Australia-specific
constitutional arguments to defeat government authority.
8
Other pseudolaw
encountered in Australian litigation are parts of the Pseudolaw Memeplex which
entered Australia from the US, Canada, and the UK.
The Sovereign Citizen-sourced fractional banking Fiscal Misconception appeared in
Australia in the 1990s, prior to the maturation of the Pseudolaw Memeplex, and was
promoted by Australian guru Lawrence Hoins (Crossroads-DMD Mortgage
Investment Corporation v Gauthier 2015). Sovereign Citizen guru David Wynn Miller
(Netolitzky 2016a:630; Netolitzky 2018a:III(B)(1)(b)) appeared in Australian courts
personally circa 2009-2010, unsuccessfully arguing his bizarre grammar-based
theories.
Some Australian pseudolaw litigants self-identify as “Freemen-on-the-Land”, or use
Canadian-style Freeman documents and Pseudolaw Memeplex language.
9
Others
use language and concepts with a US Sovereign Citizen flavor, for example citing the
US Uniform Commercial Code as an authority.
10
Many Australian court decisions
respond to Pseudolaw Memeplex concepts whose exact pedigree is not obvious.
Australia has a collection of unique gurus. From 1998 to 2010 Malcolm McClure
7
For example: Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd 2010.
8
For example: Baker v New South Wales Police 2013; Krysiak v Carruthers 2012.
9
For example: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana 2008;
Anderson v Kerslake 2013.
10
For example: ACM Group Ltd v Jenner 2014; Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire
2014.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
17
operated U.P.M.A.R.T. and provided “common law” legal solutions, issued fake
licence plates and motor vehicle documentation, and sold a purported GST
exemption kit (U.P.M.A.R.T. Common Law Courts). Marc McMurtrie’s “Truthology”
(Truthology) taught Three/Five Letters Silence Means Agreement debt elimination,
and a Freeman-style “Notice of Rebuttal of Claim to Title to Land and Claim of Right”
used by aborigines to assert extraordinary land claims.
11
Certain more recent Australian gurus exhibit a clear foreign influence. For example,
Santos Bonacci, a prominent pseudolaw community figure, promotes
“AstroTheology”, a combination of religious, pseudoscientific, occult, New Age, and
pseudolegal concepts. He adapted his ideas from Kate of Gaia. Bonacci ended up in
legal trouble after he accumulated over $132,000.00 in unpaid toll and speeding
fines, and contempt convictions for attempting to intimidate court actors (The Queen
v Bonnaci 2015; The Queen v Bonacci (No 2) 2015). The Reclaim Australia (Reclaim
Australia) website includes books by Sovereign Citizen George Mercier and
Canadian Freeman Croft.
Australian pseudolaw has no focus outside the usual objectives for these concepts
(Netolitzky 2016d:II(A)(1)). That said, sociologist Judy Lattas identifies a particular
Australian phenomenon: individuals or family groups declaring themselves
independent nations on an pseudolaw basis (2005a; 2005b).
New Zealand also appears to have received pseudolaw from multiple foreign
sources, including the US (Sovereign Citizens, OPPT), Canada (Freemen-on-the-
Land), and the UK (Get Out Of Debt Free). Two things distinguish the New Zealand
pseudolaw phenomenon from its Australian neighbor. First, to date there is little
evidence of New Zealand-specific pseudolaw theory, in contrast to Australia’s rich
variety of local concepts. Second, many New Zealand pseudolaw litigants are Maori,
and their ethnic status is often identified in their claims to be outside conventional
legal control.
12
Pseudolaw appears have developed a firm presence in Australia and New Zealand,
with a steady stream of reported decisions appearing in both jurisdictions.
However, these concepts are apparently sequestered in a diverse collection of
dissident groups and individuals. Currently, there is no basis to expect these ideas
will expand outside this marginal host population base.
VI. Conclusion
Since it first crystallized two decades ago, the Pseudolaw Memeplex has spread
broadly across the globe. Its concepts proved acceptable to a diverse and in many
ways incompatible range of counterculture and marginal groups. The same
pseudolaw is practiced by white (Sovereign Citizen, Reichsbürger) and black (MLP)
11
For example: Anderson v Kerslake 2013; R v Anning 2013.
12
For example: APD Property Developments Ltd v Papakura District Council 2009.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
18
supremacists, and by criminals (Canadian Freemen-on-the-Land) and those who
claim to uphold the true law and Constitution (UK Freemen, Sovereign Citizens).
The Pseudolaw Memeplex does not alter the communities it infects, but rather
provides a promised means to end: free money, immunity to perceived state
oppression, a right to recapture traditional values and social structures. Like a virus,
the Pseudolaw Memeplex’s potential host range is defined by a specific vulnerability
- what do these people want? The Pseudolaw Memeplex’s function is to subvert
state and institutional authority, so that sets the limit of where these ideas will
encounter vulnerable potential hosts.
So far, that has been the outskirts of society. Could that change? Perhaps. The
Pseudolaw Memeplex is a tool of (pseudo)legal revolt. Would these ideas become
more broadly acceptable if the public concludes government and its institutions are
illegitimate? There is evidence that has happened in the past (Kent 2015).
This disease of ideas is obviously potent and adaptable. This paper has illustrated
paths of infection, but now a new process is underway: hybridization. Formerly
isolated regional pseudolaw strains are increasingly shared as a common language
of pseudolaw permeates online communities. Will this intermingling provide new
adaptive motifs, or solidify pseudolaw as a monolith, a third global system of law?
Only time will tell.
References
A Lawful Rebel. 2015, April 15. Lawful rebellion guide. Self-published.
ACM Group Ltd v Jenner, [2014] QMC 7.
Allied Irish Banks plc v McQuaid, [2017] IEHC 485.
Anderson v Kerslake, [2013] QDC 262.
Anonymous. n.d. The Untold Secret of the Moors. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/249803143/The-Untold-Secret-of-the-Moors.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana, [2008] FCA 374.
Attack The Tax. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20130306015227/http://www.attackthetax.com:80
/ https://www.facebook.com/attackthetax/.
Baker v New South Wales Police, [2013] NSWSC 57.
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Martin, [2017] IEHC 707.
Barkun, Michael. 1994. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian
Identity Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Barry, Niamh and Macdara ÓDrisceoil. 2017. “Constitutional Right to Protest and the
Freemen on the Land Movement.” Irish Judicial Studies Journal 17(1):39-48.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
19
Bell, Devon M. 2016, March. The Sovereign Citizen Movement: The Shifting Ideological
Winds. Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved from
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/48519/16Mar_Bell_Devon.pdf.
Berger, J. 2016, June. “Without Prejudice: What Sovereign Citizens Believe.” George
Washington University Program on Extremism. Center for Cyber & Homeland
Security. Retrieved from
https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Occasional%20Paper_B
erger.pdf.
British Constitution Group. Retrieved from
http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com.
British Library. 2014, 28 July. “Magna Carta.” Retrieved from
https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation.
Bundesstelle für Sektenfragen. 2014. Tätigkeitsbericht 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/III/III_00207/imfname_468095.pdf
.
Cannabis Culture. 2000. “Wake Up Activists!! Round 6” Retrieved from
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9122-wake-up-
activists-round-6/.
Casper, Christa and Neihard Neubauer. 2012. “Durchs wilde Absurdistan-orer: Wie
“Reichsbürger” den Fortbestand des Deutschen Reiches beweisen wollen.” Lande-
und Kommunalverwaltung 12:529-537.
Chapman, Veronica. 2009. Freedom ... is more than just a seven-letter word. TamaRe
House.
Common Law Society. Retrieved from http://www.thecommonlawsociety.com
http://www.thecls.one.
Copyright Your Name. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20140517063121/http://copyrightyourname.com.
Corcoran, James. 1990. Bitter Harvest: Gordon Kahl and the Posse Comitatus; Murder
in the Heartland. New York: Viking.
Costello, Norma. 2015, August 15. “Trust ‘preying’ on home owners.” Retrieved from
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/trust-preyingon-home-owners-
348377.html.
Croft, Mary Elizabeth. 2007. How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-confiscatory
Agency Known to Man … a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who
You Are. Self-published.
Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703.
d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298.
Dereunie.info. Retrieved from http://www.dereunie.info/.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
20
Detax Canada. Retrieved online:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010419121305/http://www.detaxcanada.org:80/
detax1.htm.
DW. 2017a, July 24. “Federal Criminal Police call Reichsbürger a terror threat.”
Retrieved from http://p.dw.com/p/2h29o.
DW. 2017b, October 12. “Far-right Reichsbürger movement much larger than
initially estimated.” Retrieved from http://p.dw.com/p/2lkB1.
FMOTL.com. Retrieved from http://www.fmotl.com.
Freedom Free For All. 2016, October 4. “Learn How To Press Charges with David
Kevin Lindsay.” Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNuYyAIkxJA.
Getoutofdebtfree. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20170124022817/https://www.getoutofdebtfree.or
g/.
Giftoftruth. Retrieved from https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/.
Gleeson v Tazbell Services Group, [2015] IEHC 394.
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd, [2010] WASCA 87.
Harris, John. n.d. “Goodbye.” Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20170109234556/http://www.tpuc.org:80/goodbye
/.
Hypnotic Olmec Punch. 2016. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20160405055705/http://www.hypnotiqueolmecpu
nch.org/.
Ikclaimminjnaam.be. Retrieved from http://www.ikclaimmijnaam.be/.
Ikclaimminjnaam.nl. Retrieved from http://www.ikclaimmijnnaam.nl/.
lreland & the Attorney General, [2016] IESC 35.
Jackson, Christopher S. 1996. “The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering
Unto Caesar – Whatever His Demands.” Gonzaga Law Review 32(2):291-329.
Jones v Skyring, [1992] HCA 39.
Kateofgaia.net. Retrieved from http://kateofgaia.net/.
Kennedy, Gerald and Tara McIndoe-Calder. 2011, January. “The Irish Mortgage
Market: Stylised Facts, Negative Equity and Arrears, Research Technical Paper
12/RT/11.” Central Bank of Ireland.
Kent, Stephen A. and Robin D. Willey. 2013. “Sects, Cults, and the Attack on
Jurisprudence.” Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion 14(2):306-360.
Kent, Stephen A. 2015. “Freemen, Sovereign Citizens, and the Challenge to Public
Order in British Heritage Countries.” International Journal of Cultic Studies 6:1-15.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
21
Keys, Tomás. 2014a. “Freeman on the Land and Other Organized Lay Litigant
Groups – Part 1.” Commercial Law Practitioner 10:230-237.
Keys, Tomás. 2014. “Freeman on the Land and Other Organized Lay Litigant Groups
– Part 2.” Commercial Law Practitioner 11:256-262.
Koniak, Susan P. 1996. “When Law Risks Madness.” Cardozo Studies in Law and
Literature 8:65-138.
Krysiak v Carruthers, [2012] WASC 472.
Lattas, Judy. 2005a. “DIY Sovereignty and the Popular Right in Australia.” Retrieved
from http://www.crsi.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=10576.
Lattas, Judy. 2005b. “Technicalities.” Retrieved from http://www.transforma-
online.de/deutsch/transforma2005/papers/lattas.html.
Lawful Rebellion. Retrieved from http://www.lawfulrebellion.org.
http://lawfulrebellion.info.
Lethbridge, David. 2000, June. “Sovereign Citizens: Eldon Warman and the Detax
Movement.” Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20010420142124/http://www.bethuneinstitute.org:
80/documents/eldonwarman.html.
Lindsay, David Kevin. 1999. Rights Denied! How Your government has stolen Your
Right to use the Highways You pay for! Winnipeg: AaA Publishing.
Losethename.com. Retrieved from http://losethename.com.
Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.
Menard, Robert Arthur. n.d.a. Application and Submission Means: Drop’em, Bend Over
& Don’t Expect Lube, How The Government REALLY Gains Power. Self-published.
Menard, Robert Arthur. n.d.b. Your Child OR Her Life DECEPTION AND EVIL IN THE
Ministry of Children, Family and Community Development. Elizabeth Anne Elaine
Society.
Menard, Robert Arthur. 2004. Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception. Vancouver:
Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society and Freddie Freepickle Productions.
Menard, Robert Arthur. 2011. With Lawful Excuse. Vancouver: Elizabeth Anne Elaine
Society and Freddie Freepickle Productions.
Morlin, Bill. 2016, August 17. “Sovereign Citizen Who Wrote Bogus $300,000 Check
Gets 20 Years in Prison.” Retrieved from:
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/08/17/sovereign-citizen-who-wrote-
bogus-300000-check-gets-20-years-prison.
Muljiani, Alex. 2000, May. Becoming Free of the Canada Income Tax Act. Condensed
Version (self-published). Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/19991128102155/http://www.detaxcanada.org:80/i
ntro.htm.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
22
Muljiani, Alex. 2002, June 19. “Inform Canada Special Issue.” Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20050513184140/http://matrix.freecanadian.net:80/
Newsletters/INFORM_CANADA_NEWSLETTER%20ISSUE_036.rtf.
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2016a. “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial
Argument [OPCA] Phenomenon in Canada.” Alberta Law Review 53(3):609-642.
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2016b. “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [OPCA]
in Canada; an Attack on the Legal System.” Journal of Parliamentary and Political
Law 10:137-193.
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2017. “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments in
Canadian Inter-Partner Family Law Court Disputes.” Alberta Law Review 54(4):955-
996.
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2018a. “Lawyers and Court Representation of Organized
Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] Litigants in Canada.” University of British
Columbia Law Review 51(2) (in press).
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2018b. “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments
[“OPCA”] as Magic and Ceremony.” Alberta Law Review 55(4) (in press).
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2018c. “After the Hammer: Five Years of Meads v Meads.”
(2018) Alberta Law Review (submitted).
Netolitzky, Donald J. 2018d, May 3. “A Rebellion of Furious Paper: Pseudolaw as a
Revolutionary Legal System.” CEFIR Symposium: Sovereign Citizens in Canada.
O’Connell v The State of Western Australia, [2012] WASCA 96.
Palmer, Susan. 2016. The Nuwabian Nation: Black Spirituality and State Control. New
York: Routledge.
Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire, [2014] WASCA 5.
People’s Coalition. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20170921143016/http://peoplescoalition.co.uk/.
Perry, Barbara, David C. Hofmann and Ryan Scrivens. 2017, August. “Working Paper
17-02: Broadening our Understanding of Anti-Authority Movements in Canada.”
Waterloo: TSAS.
Quatloos. Retrieved from http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/index.php.
R v Anning, [2013] QCA 263.
R v Chong (1909), 14 BCR 275 (BCSC).
R v Lindsay (1999), 134 ManR (2d) 15 (Man CA).
R v Meikle, 2003 BCPC 162.
R v Proteau, 2002 SKPC 119.
R v Warman, 2000 BCPC 22.
R v Warman, 2001 BCCA 510.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
23
Reclaim Australia. Retrieved from http://www.reclaimaustralia.net.
Reisinger, Eva. 2016, March 4. “Ausstieg aus der „Firma Österreich“: Zu Besuch am
Schloss des ersten Freeman.” VICE. Retrieved from
https://www.vice.com/de_at/article/4wpez3/freeman-besuch-849.
Reynolds v McDermott, [2014] IEHC 219.
Rooney, Keith. 2011, April. “Land of the Free, Home of the Deluded.” Law Society
Gazette 12-15.
Ryan, Conor. 2013, September 7. “Property trust event may be last ‘signing-in’.”
Retrieved from https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/property-trust-event-
may-be-last-signing-in-242235.html.
Sammon, Garret. 2015. “‘Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument’ Litigation:
Challenges for the Administration of Justice in Ireland.” Dublin Law Journal
38(1):85-102.
Selk, Avi. 2018, January 13. “These Trump supporters built a gallows and tried to
arrest London’s mayor. People laughed at them.” The Washington Post. Retrieved
from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/13/these-
trump-supporters-built-a-gallows-and-tried-to-arrest-londons-mayor-people-
laughed-at-them/.
Slater, Brian. 2016. Sovereign Citizen Movement: an empirical study on the rise in
activity, explanations of growth, and policy prescriptions. Naval Postgraduate School.
Retrieved from
http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/50485/16Sep_Slater_Brian.pdf.
Smith, Thompson. 1997. “The Patriot Movement: Refreshing the Tree of Liberty with
Fertilizer Bombs and the Blood of Martyrs.” Valparaiso University Law Review
32:269-347.
Sovereignfreeman.com. Retrieved from http://sovereignfreeman.com/home/.
Sullivan, Francis X. 1999. “The “Usurping Octopus of Jurisdictional/Authority”: The
Legal Theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement.” Wisconsin Law Review 785-823.
Take Back Control. Retrieved from https://takebackcontrol.vote.
Thauberger, J.A. n.d. Billions for the Bankers; Debts for the People. 6th ed. Christopher
Lake: Freedom Foundations Inc. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20160331230736/http://somagardens.com/billions/
b-toc.htm.
The People’s Bailiffs. Retrieved from https://thepeoplesbailiffs.co.uk.
The Queen v Bonacci, [2015] VSC 121.
The Queen v Bonacci (No 2), [2015] VSC 134.
Tir na Saor. n.d.a. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20100909153815/http://tirnasaor.com:80/.

Netolitzky - Pseudolaw Epidemiology
24
Tir na Saor. n.d.b. Freeman Guide. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/details/FREEMANGUIDE.
TPUC. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20150810050343/http://www.tpuc.org.
Truthology. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20161105190700/http://www.truthology.org.au:80
/.
U.P.M.A.R.T. Common Law Course. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20100904034414/http://upmartcommonlawcourse.
com.
US v Stout, CR-02-BE-0528-S (Al Dist Ct 2001).
Vaché, James and Mark DeForrest. 1997. “Truth or Consequences: The
Jurisprudential Errors of the Militant Far-Right.” Gonzaga Law Review 32(3):593-
620.
Wilking, Dirk. 2015. “Reichsbrger”: Ein Handbuch. Potsdam: Brandenburgische
Universitätsdruckerei und Verlagsgesellschaft Potsdam mbh.