International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 50
Without direct social sciences population studies,
drawing general conclusions about pseudolaw
populations is difficult. That said, what MCLR
adherents wrote, and what they identified as issues,
helps understand this group. The typical MCLR
member exhibits conspiratorial thinking. Their
understanding of legal concepts is negligible. Most
appear to be badly informed, poorly educated, and
unsophisticated. MCLR community participants
commonly describe a lower income, marginal
existence, which is typical of UK pseudolaw adherents
as a whole (Netolitzky, 2018a, pp. 13-14). Many are “on
the dole,” and reference public housing, social support,
and disability and unemployment benefits. Preparing
the very basic “fill-in-the-blanks” documents required
by the MCLR process was too much for many MCLR
adherents, judging from their public complaints and
requests for assistance.
The MCLR guru-to-follower relationship was not
based on money. In many ways, Robinson and
Phoenix appear to have attracted a community who
are also their social, intellectual, ideological, and
conspiratorial peers. Neither Robinson nor Phoenix
appear to have solicited much in the way of funds from
their supporters,18 though Phoenix does appear to have
“couch-surfed” her way around the UK for over two
years, relying on her followers as a safety net.
The dramatic expansion of the MCLR says less about
the appeal of Robinson, Phoenix, and their ideas,
and certainly not the efficacy of their methods, but,
instead, reflects how pseudolaw populations often
expand during periods of crisis and stress (Kent, 2015
Netolitzky, 2023a Netolitzky, 2023b Young, Hobbs,
&McIntyre, 2023). In that sense, events of 2019-
2021 created a synergy of medical catastrophe, social
upheaval, economic stress, and political fragmentation,
all while false and conspiratorial concepts, usually
sequestered in the cultic milieu, have poured out
and contaminated the public consciousness. In this
environment, dysfunctional mass group phenomena
are commonplace, as illustrated by the QAnon
phenomenon. The MCLR is just one additional
example.
18 For example, attempts to raise funds to purchase a “caravan” trailer
for Phoenix to facilitate the “Redress” tour were unsuccessful.
F. Social Structure, Operations, and Control
The MCLR is chiefly an online social media
phenomenon. The two primary MCLR Facebook
groups, Public Lawful Dissent and Public Lawful
Dissent International, are the key communications
forums and recruitment mechanism. Like many
other pseudolaw gurus, Robinson and Phoenix have
produced YouTube videos, but neither are very effective
in this medium (e.g., Denounce the Deception, 2017
EOTT, 2019 Phoenix, 2020c Phoenix, 2021b),
particularly compared to more sophisticated pseudolaw
televangelists such as Canadian Freeman-on-the-Land
Robert Menard (Netolitzky, 2021, p. 184).
Individual “Redress” tour meetings were successful,
which demonstrates Phoenix is an effective social
centerpiece, at least when engaged with small select
supporter groups and in a seminar-like format.
Robinson made occasional personal public speaking
appearances, though with mixed results (e.g., Yates,
2017).
Many pseudolaw movements exhibit low cohesion,
which is hardly surprising, since organizing the
marginal social dissidents attracted to these groups
is much like “herding cats.” Robinson ultimately
responded by essentially disconnecting from his
potential follower base (Robinson, 2020a).
The MCLR under Phoenix is much different. Content
and communication in Phoenix’s chief Facebook
group, Practical Lawful Dissent International, is tightly
controlled by rigorous message and membership
screening, and aggressive forum moderation either
by Phoenix or a small cadre of her loyalists. External
information sources and competing ideas are strictly
excluded. Non-MCLR pseudolaw is publicly rejected as
prohibited “Freeman” concepts. MCLR adherents face
expulsion when they introduce any such ideas. What
little dissent and criticism leaks through is immediately
deleted. “Truths” and the group’s history are managed
by redaction of earlier content.
The response to the 2020 AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB
489 court decision that rejected MCLR materials and
arguments illustrates Phoenix’s strict information
and message control approach. That court decision
and its contents have never been posted or linked in

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 51
the Practical Lawful Dissent International Facebook
group. Mainstream media reporting that resulted from
AVI v MHVB triggered several video rants by Phoenix
(Phoenix, 2020a Phoenix, 2020b), but those carefully
omit any direct link to the decision in question, and
what, exactly, Justice Graesser concluded.
Robinson’s Laymans Guide and its Three/Five Letters
documents are treated as the “Word of God.” No
deviations from or evolution of those concepts are
permitted. Anyone who questions MCLR orthodoxy
or its leadership is censored, expelled, and demonized
as “controlled opposition”: government and/or “New
World Order” puppets. Both gurus used this mechanism
to maintain a uniform public message. While Phoenix
often employs this mechanism when faced by any
dissent, Robinson in 2020 targeted Phoenix in much
the same way (Robinson, 2020b).
MCLR Facebook groups therefore operate as echo
chambers. Both Phoenix and Robinson received
ritualistic messages of appreciation from followers.
Both are elevated and publicly revered as uniquely
gifted leaders. Phoenix, in particular, embraced her
special status, and has adopted an increasingly esoteric
persona and dress, by summer 2021 usually appearing
with a ritual staff and crystal (Figure 3), and sometimes
wearing purple Christmas lights in her ubiquitous
cowboy hat. Others in the movement have not adopted
atypical dress.
The MCLR is unusual among pseudolaw movements
by its use of visual icons, logos, and other “branding.”
Figure 6 illustrates the MCLR shield motif that Robinson
employed at least as early as 2015. The MCLR shield
is found on almost all MCLR publications, template
documents, and materials.
Robinson’s Facebook social media re-used non-MCLR
antiauthority videos and meme images circulating in
broader conspiratorial circles, but Phoenix’s Practical
Lawful Dissent International Facebook group contains
a wide variety of surprisingly high-quality MCLR-
specific promotional imagery, such as illustrated in
Figure 7.
Phoenix’s group has also offered printed items that
allegedly possess tangible legal effect, such as Figure
8’s MCLR replacement motor vehicle tax disk, and
Figure 6 -The MCLR shield used from 2015 onward, and
found on practically all MCLR documents and materials.
Personalized and/or regionalized versions are also known,
and typically add a coat of arms to the upper right quadrant.
Figure 7 includes an annotated version indicating the symbolic
meaning of the various components, such as the “Multi Ethnic
Handshake.”
a “caution card” that followers are instructed will
defeat state authorities, particularly law enforcement.
“Sympathetic magic” documents and IDs, items that
are obviously fake, but that purport to grant special
authority, are quite common in pseudolaw circles
(Netolitzky, 2018b), but typically are sold, rather than
distributed without cost.
While pseudolaw documents often are elaborate and
ornamented in strange and dramatic ways (Netolitzky,
2018b, pp. 1053-1069), the visual designs used to
promote pseudolaw movements and gurus are typically
crude. So, while MCLR theory is an almost ridiculous
and primitive caricature of actual legal processes and
concepts, the visual presentation of some online MCLR
materials is unusually sophisticated.19 The higher
quality graphics used in MCLR materials plausibly had
significant effect in both attracting MCLR adherents
and competing with other Commonwealth pseudolaw
groups.
Social control within the modern MCLR is primarily
passive. Its adherents are self-selected by their
19 The Laymans Guide template documents developed by Robinson
fall to the “crude” end of the spectrum.