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
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
