International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 42
highlights how pseudolaw is a flexible (though
ineffective) mechanism that can potentially attract any
who resist state authority.
Belief in pseudolaw leads to bizarre speech and
behaviour, but mental health experts have consistently
classified pseudolaw concepts as extremist political
belief, rather than a kind of mental disorder (e.g.,
Paradis, Owen &McCullough, 2018 Parker, 2014
Pytyck &Chaimowitz, 2013). That classification is
somewhat of an oversimplification, as occasionally
pseudolaw is deployed and portrayed as professional
expert knowledge (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 177-178).
Pseudolaw is sometimes explicitly employed to
enhance and/or impose claimed religious beliefs
(Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 175-176). While the role of key
promoter figures, “gurus,” in propagating pseudolaw
and organizing pseudolaw communities is well-
documented (McRoberts, 2019 Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571 Netolitzky, 2016), to date pseudolaw groups
have not been investigated as a form of thought control
and manipulation.
This article is the first in a planned series of case studies
that examines parallels between pseudolaw “legal cults”
and more commonly recognized and better modelled
cult structures. The Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion
[MCLR] is the subject of this study. The MCLR is a
UK based pseudolaw organization that claims state
authority can be divested by swearing allegiance to a
rebellion led by 28 “barons,” who, in 2001, allegedly
collapsed the constitutional order of the UK (and
apparently the remainder of the Commonwealth), via
Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta, though no-one
seems to have noticed.
II. Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion
A. Research and Information Sources
This article appears to be the first academic commentary
on the MCLR phenomenon. The MCLR itself has
only been the subject of limited media reporting (e.g.,
Blackwell, 2020b Smith, 2017), though a significant
“mainstream” response has rebutted the keystone for
MCLR theory: claims the 1215 Magna Carta provides
extraordinary modern legal rights (e.g., Coleman,
2021 Thompson, 2020). Other reporting has pointed
to the limited but uniformly unfavorable judicial
commentary about the MCLR (Blackwell, 2020a
English, 2020).
Most information documented here was obtained
directly from MCLR “official” websites,1 Facebook
groups,2 YouTube videos, and other social media
sources. However, aggressive moderation and deletion
of materials from MCLR social media sources is a
particular issue. Some primary source information was
only transient.
Fortunately, much relevant, but now deleted, MCLR
content was captured by outside observers on the
“Quatloos” anti-scam online forum.3 Commentary on
Quatloos is typically highly critical, and study targets
are addressed in a dry, dark, and sardonic manner.
That said, many Quatloos members are technical and
legal experts, and Quatloos is recognized by courts
internationally as an authoritative source on the subject
and history of pseudolaw (e.g., Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571, para. 655 Meyer v IRS, 2005, pp. 10-11).
B. History
The original June 15, 1215 Magna Carta was essentially
a written contract to settle a conflict between King
John I of England and a group of rebel barons. This
first Magna Carta was, at most, only in force until King
John’s death less than a year later.4Whilethe1215Magna
Carta and its successors subsequently have attained
practically mythological status as a constitutional
foundation for individual rights and limits on state
1 The current “official” website, “Practical Lawful Dissent” (https://
www.practicallawfuldissent.com/), has operated from 2019 onward. Two
predecessor websites, “Denounce the Deception UK” (https://web.archive.
org/web/20170627011110/http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/)and
“Lawful Rebellion” (https://web.archive.org/web/20150514071819/http://
lawfulrebellion.info:80/) are at least partially archived. “The Dissenter”
(not archived, formerly hosted at https://thedissenter.net/) contained much
MCLR materials, but was not sanctioned by either principal MCLR guru.
2 The initial primary Facebook Group, “Practical Lawful Dissent”
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent), operated from
2014 onward, while most recent MCLR social media activity occurs in the
“Practical Lawful Dissent International” group (https://www.facebook.com/
groups/754338414949984) created in 2019
3 Website: https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/index.php.
4 The 1215 Magna Carta was annulled by Pope Innocent III on August
24, 1215 (Hindley, 1990). Young, Hobbs, &McIntyre, 2023). In a way, the
exaggerated public perception of the Magna Carta is understandable, since
mainstream political, legal, and academic authorities often invoke the Magna
Carta as a basic restatement of rights and the social contract, though that is
a purely revisionist perspective that evolved only centuries after the original
legislation (Hindley, 1990, pp. 171-200).
highlights how pseudolaw is a flexible (though
ineffective) mechanism that can potentially attract any
who resist state authority.
Belief in pseudolaw leads to bizarre speech and
behaviour, but mental health experts have consistently
classified pseudolaw concepts as extremist political
belief, rather than a kind of mental disorder (e.g.,
Paradis, Owen &McCullough, 2018 Parker, 2014
Pytyck &Chaimowitz, 2013). That classification is
somewhat of an oversimplification, as occasionally
pseudolaw is deployed and portrayed as professional
expert knowledge (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 177-178).
Pseudolaw is sometimes explicitly employed to
enhance and/or impose claimed religious beliefs
(Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 175-176). While the role of key
promoter figures, “gurus,” in propagating pseudolaw
and organizing pseudolaw communities is well-
documented (McRoberts, 2019 Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571 Netolitzky, 2016), to date pseudolaw groups
have not been investigated as a form of thought control
and manipulation.
This article is the first in a planned series of case studies
that examines parallels between pseudolaw “legal cults”
and more commonly recognized and better modelled
cult structures. The Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion
[MCLR] is the subject of this study. The MCLR is a
UK based pseudolaw organization that claims state
authority can be divested by swearing allegiance to a
rebellion led by 28 “barons,” who, in 2001, allegedly
collapsed the constitutional order of the UK (and
apparently the remainder of the Commonwealth), via
Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta, though no-one
seems to have noticed.
II. Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion
A. Research and Information Sources
This article appears to be the first academic commentary
on the MCLR phenomenon. The MCLR itself has
only been the subject of limited media reporting (e.g.,
Blackwell, 2020b Smith, 2017), though a significant
“mainstream” response has rebutted the keystone for
MCLR theory: claims the 1215 Magna Carta provides
extraordinary modern legal rights (e.g., Coleman,
2021 Thompson, 2020). Other reporting has pointed
to the limited but uniformly unfavorable judicial
commentary about the MCLR (Blackwell, 2020a
English, 2020).
Most information documented here was obtained
directly from MCLR “official” websites,1 Facebook
groups,2 YouTube videos, and other social media
sources. However, aggressive moderation and deletion
of materials from MCLR social media sources is a
particular issue. Some primary source information was
only transient.
Fortunately, much relevant, but now deleted, MCLR
content was captured by outside observers on the
“Quatloos” anti-scam online forum.3 Commentary on
Quatloos is typically highly critical, and study targets
are addressed in a dry, dark, and sardonic manner.
That said, many Quatloos members are technical and
legal experts, and Quatloos is recognized by courts
internationally as an authoritative source on the subject
and history of pseudolaw (e.g., Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571, para. 655 Meyer v IRS, 2005, pp. 10-11).
B. History
The original June 15, 1215 Magna Carta was essentially
a written contract to settle a conflict between King
John I of England and a group of rebel barons. This
first Magna Carta was, at most, only in force until King
John’s death less than a year later.4Whilethe1215Magna
Carta and its successors subsequently have attained
practically mythological status as a constitutional
foundation for individual rights and limits on state
1 The current “official” website, “Practical Lawful Dissent” (https://
www.practicallawfuldissent.com/), has operated from 2019 onward. Two
predecessor websites, “Denounce the Deception UK” (https://web.archive.
org/web/20170627011110/http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/)and
“Lawful Rebellion” (https://web.archive.org/web/20150514071819/http://
lawfulrebellion.info:80/) are at least partially archived. “The Dissenter”
(not archived, formerly hosted at https://thedissenter.net/) contained much
MCLR materials, but was not sanctioned by either principal MCLR guru.
2 The initial primary Facebook Group, “Practical Lawful Dissent”
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/practicallawfuldissent), operated from
2014 onward, while most recent MCLR social media activity occurs in the
“Practical Lawful Dissent International” group (https://www.facebook.com/
groups/754338414949984) created in 2019
3 Website: https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/index.php.
4 The 1215 Magna Carta was annulled by Pope Innocent III on August
24, 1215 (Hindley, 1990). Young, Hobbs, &McIntyre, 2023). In a way, the
exaggerated public perception of the Magna Carta is understandable, since
mainstream political, legal, and academic authorities often invoke the Magna
Carta as a basic restatement of rights and the social contract, though that is
a purely revisionist perspective that evolved only centuries after the original
legislation (Hindley, 1990, pp. 171-200).
