International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 4
is tailored to the specific people who use pseudolaw,
the jurisdiction where they are located, and that
jurisdiction’s history. Almost every pseudolaw narrative
includes a conspiratorial aspect, because the false
superficial legal system is imposed by actors who seek
to steal away the public’s rights, for their own advantage.
Sometimes the exact malevolent hidden hand is known
and identified, but, often, those malignant agents are
part of an amorphous, unknowable, improvisational
millenialist “New World Order” (Barkun, 2013).
Some pseudolaw narratives are simple, but many are
baroque constructs. For example, the recent Canadian
“New Constitutionalist” movement (Netolitzky,
2023e, III(A)) explain that while the 1931 Statute of
Westminster is claimed to have expanded the sovereignty
of Canada, that legislation was intentionally sabotaged
(the saboteurs identity is unclear), and the result,
instead, was that the nation state of Canada created
in 1867 ceased to exist. New Constitutionalists say the
various levels of (so-called) Canadian government
know that, but still pretend to be in control. New
Constitutionalists now challenge those allegedly false
authorities by filling the gap in “de jure” state authority
by self-organizing new republics, whose geographic
boundaries match the Canadian (not) provinces, and
where authority is derived from “We The People,” who
are subject only to the “common law.”
Pseudolaw’s backstories refashion accepted history
and law along new paths. The US Sovereign
Citizen communities frame themselves as the last
true defenders of the American Revolution and its
foundational documents. Their story claims the US
Federal government is illegitimate, and explain how
the 14th Amendment, that purportedly eliminated
slavery, instead trapped common law “Citizens of the
Several States” within a contract that stripped away
freedoms and rights via a new replacement “commercial
law” status: “Citizens of the United States” (Erickson,
1999, pp. 9-12, 34-35 Harris, 2005, pp. 294-297
Kalinowski, 2019, pp. 177-181 Koniak, 1996, pp. 68,
81-90 Sullivan, 1999, pp. 797-798, 804-811). Dew has
concluded that the US “Aliite” pseudolaw communities
are black Americans who relabel their citizenship--not
as blacks--but as “Moors” or “Washitaw Indians,” whose
relationship with the state is defined by international
treaty, or pre-colonial indigenous and treaty rights
(Dew, 2019).
One can learn much about those who use pseudolaw by
looking at these ahistorical fantasies. These stories frame
the “who, what, where, when, and why” of the conflict
of false and true laws, and the grievances, demands, and
objectives of pseudolaw’s users. Pseudolaw’s narratives
reveal the political and philosophical frameworks, and
ideological motivations, of pseudolaw’s communities.
C. Pseudolaw has a Purpose and Social Function
Pseudolaw’s not-law rules and its conspiratorial
narratives have a clear purpose and social function.
Pseudolaw rebalances authority, removing and rejecting
“conventional” state and institutional authority, and
shifting that balance of power to individuals (Netolitzky,
2018c Netolitzky, 2021). As such, pseudolaw is an anti-
authority tool. Pseudolaw purports to subvert and/or
negate government rule-making, and de-legitimizes
authority over “subject” populations.
The net result is that pseudolaw spuriously empowers
dissident, marginal, and anti-state individuals and
populations. Pseudolaw does two dangerous things.
First, pseudolaw’s rules promote positive steps and
resistance against the (supposedly) false, tyrannical
state-made law (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 178-191). In that
way, pseudolaw promotes active conflict (Goldstein,
2015). The manifestations of that pattern are very well
documented, ranging from refusal to pay income tax
(Netolitzky, 2016a, pp. 616-624 Netolitzky, 2023a,
pp. 814-817 Sarteschi, 2020, pp. 1-2), to roadside
confrontations with between law enforcement and
pseudolaw “Travellers” (Sarteschi, 2020, pp. 12-29),
through to violent extremes, spree shootings, and even
terrorist actions (Bell, 2016 Colacci, 2015, pp. 159-
160 Mallek, 2016 Netolitzky, 2016b Sarteschi, 2020,
pp. 31-42, 66-68 Sarteschi, 2021).
Second, pseudolaw’s narratives justify that conflict:
“The law is on our side.” The conspiratorial stories
interwoven into pseudolaw schemes are not just
about a difference of opinion, or alternative political
philosophies, but a far more fundamental conflict: a
potentially existential battle to regain lost freedom,
stolen away by a dark design. Conventional government
and institutional actors who do not “bend the knee”
to pseudolaw are bad actors. Steps in response
are discipline of “outlaws.” Combined, the shift of
authority, and the narrative of oppression by a bad
is tailored to the specific people who use pseudolaw,
the jurisdiction where they are located, and that
jurisdiction’s history. Almost every pseudolaw narrative
includes a conspiratorial aspect, because the false
superficial legal system is imposed by actors who seek
to steal away the public’s rights, for their own advantage.
Sometimes the exact malevolent hidden hand is known
and identified, but, often, those malignant agents are
part of an amorphous, unknowable, improvisational
millenialist “New World Order” (Barkun, 2013).
Some pseudolaw narratives are simple, but many are
baroque constructs. For example, the recent Canadian
“New Constitutionalist” movement (Netolitzky,
2023e, III(A)) explain that while the 1931 Statute of
Westminster is claimed to have expanded the sovereignty
of Canada, that legislation was intentionally sabotaged
(the saboteurs identity is unclear), and the result,
instead, was that the nation state of Canada created
in 1867 ceased to exist. New Constitutionalists say the
various levels of (so-called) Canadian government
know that, but still pretend to be in control. New
Constitutionalists now challenge those allegedly false
authorities by filling the gap in “de jure” state authority
by self-organizing new republics, whose geographic
boundaries match the Canadian (not) provinces, and
where authority is derived from “We The People,” who
are subject only to the “common law.”
Pseudolaw’s backstories refashion accepted history
and law along new paths. The US Sovereign
Citizen communities frame themselves as the last
true defenders of the American Revolution and its
foundational documents. Their story claims the US
Federal government is illegitimate, and explain how
the 14th Amendment, that purportedly eliminated
slavery, instead trapped common law “Citizens of the
Several States” within a contract that stripped away
freedoms and rights via a new replacement “commercial
law” status: “Citizens of the United States” (Erickson,
1999, pp. 9-12, 34-35 Harris, 2005, pp. 294-297
Kalinowski, 2019, pp. 177-181 Koniak, 1996, pp. 68,
81-90 Sullivan, 1999, pp. 797-798, 804-811). Dew has
concluded that the US “Aliite” pseudolaw communities
are black Americans who relabel their citizenship--not
as blacks--but as “Moors” or “Washitaw Indians,” whose
relationship with the state is defined by international
treaty, or pre-colonial indigenous and treaty rights
(Dew, 2019).
One can learn much about those who use pseudolaw by
looking at these ahistorical fantasies. These stories frame
the “who, what, where, when, and why” of the conflict
of false and true laws, and the grievances, demands, and
objectives of pseudolaw’s users. Pseudolaw’s narratives
reveal the political and philosophical frameworks, and
ideological motivations, of pseudolaw’s communities.
C. Pseudolaw has a Purpose and Social Function
Pseudolaw’s not-law rules and its conspiratorial
narratives have a clear purpose and social function.
Pseudolaw rebalances authority, removing and rejecting
“conventional” state and institutional authority, and
shifting that balance of power to individuals (Netolitzky,
2018c Netolitzky, 2021). As such, pseudolaw is an anti-
authority tool. Pseudolaw purports to subvert and/or
negate government rule-making, and de-legitimizes
authority over “subject” populations.
The net result is that pseudolaw spuriously empowers
dissident, marginal, and anti-state individuals and
populations. Pseudolaw does two dangerous things.
First, pseudolaw’s rules promote positive steps and
resistance against the (supposedly) false, tyrannical
state-made law (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 178-191). In that
way, pseudolaw promotes active conflict (Goldstein,
2015). The manifestations of that pattern are very well
documented, ranging from refusal to pay income tax
(Netolitzky, 2016a, pp. 616-624 Netolitzky, 2023a,
pp. 814-817 Sarteschi, 2020, pp. 1-2), to roadside
confrontations with between law enforcement and
pseudolaw “Travellers” (Sarteschi, 2020, pp. 12-29),
through to violent extremes, spree shootings, and even
terrorist actions (Bell, 2016 Colacci, 2015, pp. 159-
160 Mallek, 2016 Netolitzky, 2016b Sarteschi, 2020,
pp. 31-42, 66-68 Sarteschi, 2021).
Second, pseudolaw’s narratives justify that conflict:
“The law is on our side.” The conspiratorial stories
interwoven into pseudolaw schemes are not just
about a difference of opinion, or alternative political
philosophies, but a far more fundamental conflict: a
potentially existential battle to regain lost freedom,
stolen away by a dark design. Conventional government
and institutional actors who do not “bend the knee”
to pseudolaw are bad actors. Steps in response
are discipline of “outlaws.” Combined, the shift of
authority, and the narrative of oppression by a bad
