International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 102
3. why these taxpayers believed their suddenly
having no income tax obligations, and obtaining
large and often retroactive income tax refunds,
were legitimate.
In short, here is an opportunity to examine the first-
hand voluntary accounts of pseudolaw adherents,
from their own first-person perspectives, on how they
learned about, and why they adopted, a patently legally
absurd pseudolaw scheme, and obtained, or expected
to obtain, extraordinary benefits on that basis.
A. Pseudolaw
Pseudolaw is an alternative dissident legal system
designed to provide extraordinary advantages to
its users (Koniak, 1997 Netolitzky, 2018b, pp. 3-4
Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 183-186). Pseudolaw’s rules are
framed as law, and use legal language (McRoberts,
2019, pp. 637-644 Netolitzky, 2018a, pp. 420-421
Netolitzky, 2018b Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 164-170), but
some of pseudolaw’s rules diverge from and are rejected
by conventional courts and legal systems (Kalinowski,
2019 McRoberts, 2019 Netolitzky, 2019a Sarteschi,
2020).
Fiscal Arbitrators pseudolaw centered around one
specific component of the stereotypic pseudolaw
memeplex of rules and associated narrative: Strawman
Theory (reviewed in d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen,
2018 ABQB 298, paras. 57-70 Kalinowski, 2019, pp.
158-164 Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, paras. 417-
446 Netolitzky, 2018c, pp. 1069-1078 Pomerleau v
Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123, paras.
67-96). Strawman Theory claims that humans, what
mainstream law treats as a single unit, instead have two
separable halves: a “flesh and blood” human being, and
an immaterial legal entity, often called “the Strawman,”
or “the person.” According to Strawman Theory, human
beings are not born with a Strawman, but, rather, that
the Strawman is created by birth documentation as a
concealed trickster contract, and then attached to the
human being as a kind of dark legal doppelganger. The
Strawman is identified by a name in all capital letters,
such as “DONALD J. NETOLITZKY,” while the proper
identifier for a human is a mixed case name, or a name
with an atypical structure and/or punctuation, such as
“:Donald-J: Netolitzky:,” or “Donald of the Netolitzky
Family.”
The typical pseudolaw explanation of Strawman Theory
is that governments have no authority over human
beings, but instead chain that authority via contracts
from the government to the Strawman, then through
the Strawman to the flesh and blood individual. To
escape state authority and law, one severs the contract-
based Strawman to human linkage, and/or denounces
and rejects the Strawman’s obligations as not one’s
own. There is no “real world” legal antecedent or
parallel to the Strawman.1 Strawman Theory is purely a
pseudolaw construct.
In a critical sense, Fiscal Arbitrators reversed the usual
Strawman Theory scheme, and instead of the Strawman
operating as a nefarious secret doppelganger, Fiscal
Arbitrators claimed one can exploit the Strawman to
obtain certain benefits. Specifically, Fiscal Arbitrators
used the divided Strawman and human being duality
as a mechanism to generate fictitious income tax
losses. Fiscal Arbitrators claimed that a human being
may claim “business” expenses, allegedly resulting
from operating the Strawman, or “PERSON,” as an
income tax expense (R v Branch, [2020] OJ No 2628
(QL) (Ont Ct J), paras. 7-8). In Fiscal Arbitrators tax
returns, these expenses were claimed by a “Statement
of Agent Activities” (see Peck v The Queen, 2018 TCC
52, para. 30, as an example) where the “Agent” (a.k.a.
Strawman), named in all capital letters, is identified
as a “Business.” Legitimate income for the taxpayer is
identified as “Money Collect as Agent for Principal,”
where the “Principal” is the human being. Then, the
“Statement” identifies “Sub contracts and labour ...
AMT TO PRINCIPAL FOR AGENT,” that is deducted
from the legitimate income. In Fiscal Arbitrators
tax returns, “Sub contracts and labour ...AMT TO
PRINCIPAL FOR AGENT” was stereotypically vastly
more than a person’s legitimate income. For example,
with Peck, his “Statement” identified $116,283.25 in
actual tax year income, but then $458,965.38 in “Sub
contracts and labour,” creating a net “business” loss
of $342,682.13. For Peck, that spurious entry entirely
eliminated his tax year income tax obligation.
The “Sub contracts and labour” loss amount is entirely
fictitious, and has no legitimate basis for either its
existence or quantum. Fiscal Arbitrators promoters
appear to have simply made up these amounts. The
1 Though superficially similar, personal corporations operate on an
ownership-based rather than contract-dependent structure, and have an
opposite path of authority, control, and legal obligation.
3. why these taxpayers believed their suddenly
having no income tax obligations, and obtaining
large and often retroactive income tax refunds,
were legitimate.
In short, here is an opportunity to examine the first-
hand voluntary accounts of pseudolaw adherents,
from their own first-person perspectives, on how they
learned about, and why they adopted, a patently legally
absurd pseudolaw scheme, and obtained, or expected
to obtain, extraordinary benefits on that basis.
A. Pseudolaw
Pseudolaw is an alternative dissident legal system
designed to provide extraordinary advantages to
its users (Koniak, 1997 Netolitzky, 2018b, pp. 3-4
Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 183-186). Pseudolaw’s rules are
framed as law, and use legal language (McRoberts,
2019, pp. 637-644 Netolitzky, 2018a, pp. 420-421
Netolitzky, 2018b Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 164-170), but
some of pseudolaw’s rules diverge from and are rejected
by conventional courts and legal systems (Kalinowski,
2019 McRoberts, 2019 Netolitzky, 2019a Sarteschi,
2020).
Fiscal Arbitrators pseudolaw centered around one
specific component of the stereotypic pseudolaw
memeplex of rules and associated narrative: Strawman
Theory (reviewed in d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen,
2018 ABQB 298, paras. 57-70 Kalinowski, 2019, pp.
158-164 Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, paras. 417-
446 Netolitzky, 2018c, pp. 1069-1078 Pomerleau v
Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123, paras.
67-96). Strawman Theory claims that humans, what
mainstream law treats as a single unit, instead have two
separable halves: a “flesh and blood” human being, and
an immaterial legal entity, often called “the Strawman,”
or “the person.” According to Strawman Theory, human
beings are not born with a Strawman, but, rather, that
the Strawman is created by birth documentation as a
concealed trickster contract, and then attached to the
human being as a kind of dark legal doppelganger. The
Strawman is identified by a name in all capital letters,
such as “DONALD J. NETOLITZKY,” while the proper
identifier for a human is a mixed case name, or a name
with an atypical structure and/or punctuation, such as
“:Donald-J: Netolitzky:,” or “Donald of the Netolitzky
Family.”
The typical pseudolaw explanation of Strawman Theory
is that governments have no authority over human
beings, but instead chain that authority via contracts
from the government to the Strawman, then through
the Strawman to the flesh and blood individual. To
escape state authority and law, one severs the contract-
based Strawman to human linkage, and/or denounces
and rejects the Strawman’s obligations as not one’s
own. There is no “real world” legal antecedent or
parallel to the Strawman.1 Strawman Theory is purely a
pseudolaw construct.
In a critical sense, Fiscal Arbitrators reversed the usual
Strawman Theory scheme, and instead of the Strawman
operating as a nefarious secret doppelganger, Fiscal
Arbitrators claimed one can exploit the Strawman to
obtain certain benefits. Specifically, Fiscal Arbitrators
used the divided Strawman and human being duality
as a mechanism to generate fictitious income tax
losses. Fiscal Arbitrators claimed that a human being
may claim “business” expenses, allegedly resulting
from operating the Strawman, or “PERSON,” as an
income tax expense (R v Branch, [2020] OJ No 2628
(QL) (Ont Ct J), paras. 7-8). In Fiscal Arbitrators tax
returns, these expenses were claimed by a “Statement
of Agent Activities” (see Peck v The Queen, 2018 TCC
52, para. 30, as an example) where the “Agent” (a.k.a.
Strawman), named in all capital letters, is identified
as a “Business.” Legitimate income for the taxpayer is
identified as “Money Collect as Agent for Principal,”
where the “Principal” is the human being. Then, the
“Statement” identifies “Sub contracts and labour ...
AMT TO PRINCIPAL FOR AGENT,” that is deducted
from the legitimate income. In Fiscal Arbitrators
tax returns, “Sub contracts and labour ...AMT TO
PRINCIPAL FOR AGENT” was stereotypically vastly
more than a person’s legitimate income. For example,
with Peck, his “Statement” identified $116,283.25 in
actual tax year income, but then $458,965.38 in “Sub
contracts and labour,” creating a net “business” loss
of $342,682.13. For Peck, that spurious entry entirely
eliminated his tax year income tax obligation.
The “Sub contracts and labour” loss amount is entirely
fictitious, and has no legitimate basis for either its
existence or quantum. Fiscal Arbitrators promoters
appear to have simply made up these amounts. The
1 Though superficially similar, personal corporations operate on an
ownership-based rather than contract-dependent structure, and have an
opposite path of authority, control, and legal obligation.
