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).

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 43
and royal authority, functionally the final 1297 Magna
Carta is nothing more than legislation, and, at present,
has been all but entirely repealed (Breay, 2010, p. 48).
Pseudolegal claims, however, that some version(s) of
the Magna Carta have supraconstitutional authority
are regularly encountered (e.g., Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571 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).
More recent unorthodox claims that the original 1215
Magna Carta remains a binding authority appear
to originate with the “Magna Carta Society,”5
1
circa
1997.6 This group developed and promoted a modern
rebellion of barons under Article 61 of the 1215 Magna
Carta to eject the UK from the European Union (“MCS
A Short History,” n.d.) and, in fact, 28 members of the
House of Lords, the “New Rebel Barons,” on February
7, 2001 “petitioned” Queen Elizabeth II on that basis
(Davies, 2001).
All identified accounts indicate the “Petition” led to a
noncommittal letter in reply by the Secretary for the
Queen, and, after that, the entire matter was all but
forgotten as an unorthodox piece of political theatre.
The Magna Carta Society subsequently switched to
spreading its ideas into UK Freeman-on-the-Land
pseudolaw circles, and arguing the existence of an
inalienable common law right to weapons (Hurst,
2010). One of the Society’s leaders, Ashley Mote, served
as a Member of the European Parliament between
2004 to 2009. During that period, Mote was convicted
of fraud and received a nine-month criminal sentence
(“MEP jailed,” 2007), and then a five-year sentence
5 At least three groups have used this name. The current Magna
Carta Trust operated as the Magna Carta Society prior to 1956 (https://
magnacarta800th.com/magna-carta-today/the-magna-carta-trust/). The
Magna Carta Trust is a conventional non-pseudolaw organization that
promotes public appreciation of the historical and philosophical impact of
the Magna Cartas. A Facebook Magna Carta Society group with nationalist,
conservative, and “Brexit” perspectives was formed in 2018 (https://
www.facebook.com/themagnacartasociety/). This second group has few
participants and little activity, and does not appear to advance pseudolegal
Magna Carta concepts and claims.
6 Website: http://magnacartasocietyblog.blogspot.com/p/mcs-
short-history.html. A second website (https://www.silentmajority.co.uk/
silentmajority/eurorealist/MagnaCarta/) states the Society was founded in
1999.
Figure 1 -2001 Petition of the New Rebel Barons. Notably, the
New Rebel Barons explicitly self-identify as “Your Majesty’s
loyal and obedient subjects,” not a typical position for a group
that had purportedly upended the status of governments across
the UK and Commonwealth.
for embezzling over £400,000 in European Parliament
expenses (“Former MEP,” 2015). Mote’s 2001 book
Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty (Mote, 2001) is
the only “legal” documentary authority relied on by the
MCLR (AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489, paras. 80-82).
The Magna Carta Society’s last known public activity
was in 2017.