International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 6
the US Moorish law communities (Netolitzky, 2018b Sarteschi,
2020, pp. 59-68), what Dew (2019) calls “Aliites,” are certainly
a pseudolaw phenomenon, but not organized on a counter-
revolutionary political basis, but instead with a focus on race.
Name Nation Political and Social
Orientation
Racial Orientation Additional Key
Characteristics
Status
Sovreign Citizens US Right-wing, nationalist,
Libertarian, Christian
traditionalists
Originally white racist,
now more diverse
Aligned with US
conspiratorial
interests, Q- Anon,
right-wing political
factions
Active, possibly
expanding
Militias US Firearms ownership, anti-
Federal, pro-state
authority
Usually irrelevant Some lack pseudolaw
aspects
Active, probably
expanding
Moors US Race-based identity Black supremacist /
separatist, Islamic or
Indian trappings
Criminal, gang-
affiliated
Active, probably
expanding
Tax Protesters US Libertarian tendencies,
otherwise apolitical
Irrelevant Promoted and
organized as a
business
Dead or
marginal
One People’s Public
Trust
US, Canada,
and Austria
Left-wing, New Age,
mystical
Egalitarian Highly ceremonial,
spiritual, irrational
Dead or
marginal
Detaxers Canada Libertarian tendencies,
otherwise apolitical
Some anti-Semitic
banker conspiracy
beliefs
Promoted and
organized as a
business
Dead
Freemen-on-the-
Land
Canada Left-wing, anti-authority
reactionaries, anti-
corporate,
anti-globalization
Egalitarian and anti-
racist
Predominantly
marginal social drop-
outs and criminals /
drug traffickers
Dead
Irish Freemen Republic of
Ireland
Anti-bank, anti-authority
reactionaries
Irrelevant Anti-debt claims
triggered by property
bubble
Dead
UK Freemen UK Anti-bank, anti-authority
reactionaries
Xenophobic,
secondarily
racist, traditionalist,
pro-Brexit
Low-income, “dole”
recipient population,
debt-oriented
Active, possibly
expanding
Australia Pseudolaw
Communities
Australia Politically diverse,
Libertarian, anti-
authority
Diverse, some
xenophobic, some
Indigenous separatist
No dominant
Australia- specific
pseudolaw style,
influenced by Canada,
US, UK
Active, possibly
expanding
New Zealand
Indigenous Law
New Zealand Left-wing, Indigenous
rights, anti-authority
Indigenous supremacist
/separatist
Resembles how
Canadian Freemen
have criminal aspect
Active but
marginal
UBUNTU South Africa Socialist, New Age,
communal
Egalitarian Money for nothing,
political party
Dead
Reichsbürgers Germany &
Austria
Right-wing, nationalist,
traditionalist, reactionary
Xenophobic, anti-
immigrant, anti-Islam
Claim previous state/
governments are true
authority
Active, possibly
expanding
One Nation France Separatist, New Age,
mystical
Egalitarian Pandemic reactionary Active
NeoSoviets Russia Communist, conservative,
reactionary
Irrelevant Claim Soviet
government is true
authority
Active, possibly
expanding
The Second Republic
of Poland
Poland Reactionary, socialist,
anti-vaccine,
conspiratorial
Xenophobic, anti-
Semitic, anti-Ukrainian
Claim Polish 1918-
1939
government is true
authority
Active, possibly
expanding
Table 1 surveys some of the known host populations for pseudolaw
and illustrates the diversity of political and social characteristics
of these groups:
Table 1 -Pseudolaw Groups and Movements Worldwide
Table 1 -Summary of certain major pseudolaw movements and populations world-wide
(in part derived from Netolitzky, 2023a). The described characteristics are “loose” many
named pseudolaw groups exhibit substantial diversity, and include “satellite groups” that
vary from these core traits. Characteristics of some groups, particularly the Sovereign
Citizen pseudolaw movement, also have evolved and shifted over time.

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 7
In short, any instance where pseudolaw is publicly
encountered has two parts: 1) the largely stereotypic
set of not-law rules, 2) employed by an anti-authority,
dissident, marginal population. Understanding both
halves of this partnering--or parasitic relationship
(Netolitzky, 2021)--is necessary to describe and
evaluate an instance of pseudolaw activity.
II. Characterized Aspects of Pseudolaw, Pseudolaw
Groups, and Pseudolaw’s Uses
Pseudolaw is not an unknown subject. For decades,
substantial investigation has been conducted into
pseudolaw and pseudolaw schemes. For example,
many highly detailed academic and legal publications
have described and dissected pseudolaw’s concepts,
and documented how and why these ideas are wrong
in law (e.g., DeForrest &Vaché, 1999/2000 Harris,
2005 Kalinowski, 2019 Koniak, 1996 McRoberts,
2019 Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 Netolitzky,
2018c Netolitzky, 2018d Netolitzky, 2021 Sullivan,
1999 Vaché &DeForrest, 1996/1997). The kinds of
disputes and legal proceedings where pseudolaw is
employed have been examined in the US (Slater, 2016,
pp. 44-47) and Canada (Netolitzky, 2018c, pp. 6-7
Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 807-813).
Within the US, legal and political scholarship has
tracked the emergence and evolution of pseudolaw
from its precursors through to the modern pseudolaw
ecosystem (e.g., Bell, 2015 Berger, 2016 Harris, 2005
Sarteschi, 2020, pp. 1-6 Sullivan, 1999). The complex
and intertwining international spread of pseudolaw
worldwide, into a diverse range of communities,
has at least been partially traced and documented
(e.g., Cash, 2022 Netolitzky, 2018b Sarteschi, 2020
Sarteschi, 2022). Merging of nation-specific and US
sourced components of pseudolaw have been observed
and described (e.g., Buchmayr, 2021 Cash, 2022
Young, Hobbs &McIntyre, 2023). The stereotype
that pseudolaw is a right-wing, racist phenomenon is
now debunked pseudolaw is apolitical and has been
observed in many different and distinct functional
niches (Netolitzky, 2021).
The key symbiotic relationship between pseudolaw
and conspiracy culture was identified, examined,
and illustrated by Barkun (2013), along with the
critical fact that these two phenomena are inextricably
linked. Mental health professionals have uniformly
concluded that the atypical and sometimes bizarre
conduct and speech of those who employ pseudolaw
reflects marginal and extremist political belief,
rather than psychiatric disorder (Paradis, Owen &
McCullough, 2018 Parker, 2014 Parker, 2018 Pytyck
&Chaimowitz, 2013).
Misuse of legal processes, “paper terrorism,” has been
investigated and described (e.g., March-Safbom,
2018 Sarteschi, 2020, pp. 47-54). Investigators have
examined the potential that physical violence will
emerge from pseudolaw populations, but there is little
reason at present to be confident we understand when
and how persons influenced by pseudolaw, or who
have adopted pseudolaw, become violent (Netolitzky,
2021, p. 180). Threat assessment and legal investigators
have examined strategies to potentially minimize
and mitigate the negative effects of pseudolaw on
government, institutions, courts, and pseudolaw’s
adherents (e.g., Barrows, 2021 Ligon, 2021 March-
Safbom, 2018 McRoberts, 2019).
Despite these investigations, sometimes even very
basic data is not available. For example, commonly
encountered population claims for the number of
Sovereign Citizens, or other pseudolaw groups, are
nothing more than guesses (Mallek, 2016 Netolitzky,
2023a, pp. 807-809). Attempts to measure the volume
of court activity by pseudolaw users should be
approached with caution (Slater, 2016 Netolitzky,
2023a, pp. 807-813).
III. Pseudolaw and Religion
Then there is the interrelationship between pseudolaw
and religion. Pseudolaw and religion frequently co-
locate, but these domains are not necessarily linked.
As previously discussed, some pseudolaw is only
explicable as magic (Arnold &Fletcher, 2023 Dew,
2016, pp. 87-91 Netolitzky, 2018d Wessinger,
2000, p. 160). That explanation, however, does not
explicitly mean that the persons who use pseudolaw
do so on what they perceive as a metaphysical or
supernatural basis. Instead, some of these persons
are “re-enchanted” (Partridge, 2004), and so operate
in a manner that is consistent with their perception
of what is rational and reasonable (Netolitzky, 2018d,
pp. 1081-1087). Other times the overall character of