ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 61
Memeplex” was distributed internationally into other
jurisdictions. US-derived pseudolaw spread worldwide
into many countries throughout the Commonwealth,
and also into certain civil law jurisdictions (Netolitzky,
2018b Netolitzky, 2023a Sarteschi, 2022a). The
apparently diverse modern manifestations of pseudolaw
masks this common origin and shared foundation of
not-law rules (Netolitzky, 2021).
A significant volume of analysis and commentary has
accumulated that examines and explains pseudolaw
and its associated populations. These studies are
typically produced by legal authorities and academics,
criminologists, threat assessment investigators, and
social scientists who research violence and terrorism.
To date, the majority of studies have addressed:
1. pseudolaw’s not-law theories
2. how groups that employ pseudolaw are in
conflict with state, law enforcement, and court
actors and
3. illegal and violent activity, and the potential
for such, from populations that use pseudolaw.
Globally, that means what is documented about
pseudolaw phenomena has either: 1) a legal or law-
oriented focus, or, 2) emphasized and evaluated the
observed and potential threat characteristics that result
from pseudolaw.
Until recently, the social sciences have directed
comparatively little investigation into the characteristics
of individual pseudolaw adherents, groups, and the
pseudolaw leadership guru caste. One of the few
exceptions are studies by mental health professionals
that have consistently concluded that adoption and use
of pseudolaw is an expression of fringe and extremist
political belief, rather than the product of mental
disorder and delusion (Paradis, Owen, &McCullough,
2018 Parker, 2014 Parker, 2018 Pytyck &Chaimowitz,
2013). That finding is highly significant, since the very
unusual behaviour and language used by pseudolaw
adherents naturally suggests mental health issues and
delusional behaviour.2
1
2 See Holoyda (2022) for a parallel pattern with QAnon conspiracy
adherents.
One now-established fact is that adoption, belief
in, and applications of pseudolaw are highly social
phenomena. While, in theory, a person could become
involved in and adopt pseudolaw by simply picking
up books and reading on the Internet, true “lone
wolf” pseudolaw users are very unusual. Instead,
investigation of pseudolaw’s adherents almost always
reveals these persons are part of an often sequestered
and/or marginalized social community where the
pseudolaw adherent interacts with other aligned parties
(Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 635-636).
One of the less understood, but very interesting, aspects
of pseudolaw culture is how pseudolaw populations
are organized and structured. Observers have drawn
parallels between pseudolaw movements and cults
(Kent &Willey, 2013 Netolitzky, 2023b, I). A further
larger parallel likely exists with terrorist communities
(Banisadr, 2009 Centner, 2003 Challacombe, 2022
Levine, 1999). Many pseudolaw-using groups have
an obvious central organizing figure, who holds
that position based on (claimed) special privileged
knowledge of law, conspiratorial government control
structures, and secret hidden histories (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, paras. 85-158). The usual practice is to
call these persons “gurus.” However, the social activity
of these gurus is little studied, as are the mechanisms
by which in-group identity and membership are
established, and discipline and orthodoxy maintained.
In short, if pseudolaw movements do operate like cults,
we, at present, understand little about the internal
anatomy and mechanics of these populations as
communities.
That lack of understanding has begun to change. This
article follows on two recent studies that evaluated
markedly different pseudolaw populations. First, the
UK and Commonwealth Magna Carta Lawful Rebels
[MCLR] claimed that an oath of fealty to Lord Craigmyle
of Invernesshire granted complete immunity from state
authority, that had, in any case, purportedly collapsed
in 2001 (Netolitzky, 2023b Netolitzky, 2023c, IV). The
MCLR was a largely online phenomenon with tens of
thousands of adherents, centered on two guru figures,
who promised seizures of government institutions,
and “the gallows” for government and court actors.
Nothing came of those plans, and, by the end of 2021,
the MCLR had essentially evaporated, despite not
having been challenged by any significant state or
Memeplex” was distributed internationally into other
jurisdictions. US-derived pseudolaw spread worldwide
into many countries throughout the Commonwealth,
and also into certain civil law jurisdictions (Netolitzky,
2018b Netolitzky, 2023a Sarteschi, 2022a). The
apparently diverse modern manifestations of pseudolaw
masks this common origin and shared foundation of
not-law rules (Netolitzky, 2021).
A significant volume of analysis and commentary has
accumulated that examines and explains pseudolaw
and its associated populations. These studies are
typically produced by legal authorities and academics,
criminologists, threat assessment investigators, and
social scientists who research violence and terrorism.
To date, the majority of studies have addressed:
1. pseudolaw’s not-law theories
2. how groups that employ pseudolaw are in
conflict with state, law enforcement, and court
actors and
3. illegal and violent activity, and the potential
for such, from populations that use pseudolaw.
Globally, that means what is documented about
pseudolaw phenomena has either: 1) a legal or law-
oriented focus, or, 2) emphasized and evaluated the
observed and potential threat characteristics that result
from pseudolaw.
Until recently, the social sciences have directed
comparatively little investigation into the characteristics
of individual pseudolaw adherents, groups, and the
pseudolaw leadership guru caste. One of the few
exceptions are studies by mental health professionals
that have consistently concluded that adoption and use
of pseudolaw is an expression of fringe and extremist
political belief, rather than the product of mental
disorder and delusion (Paradis, Owen, &McCullough,
2018 Parker, 2014 Parker, 2018 Pytyck &Chaimowitz,
2013). That finding is highly significant, since the very
unusual behaviour and language used by pseudolaw
adherents naturally suggests mental health issues and
delusional behaviour.2
1
2 See Holoyda (2022) for a parallel pattern with QAnon conspiracy
adherents.
One now-established fact is that adoption, belief
in, and applications of pseudolaw are highly social
phenomena. While, in theory, a person could become
involved in and adopt pseudolaw by simply picking
up books and reading on the Internet, true “lone
wolf” pseudolaw users are very unusual. Instead,
investigation of pseudolaw’s adherents almost always
reveals these persons are part of an often sequestered
and/or marginalized social community where the
pseudolaw adherent interacts with other aligned parties
(Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 635-636).
One of the less understood, but very interesting, aspects
of pseudolaw culture is how pseudolaw populations
are organized and structured. Observers have drawn
parallels between pseudolaw movements and cults
(Kent &Willey, 2013 Netolitzky, 2023b, I). A further
larger parallel likely exists with terrorist communities
(Banisadr, 2009 Centner, 2003 Challacombe, 2022
Levine, 1999). Many pseudolaw-using groups have
an obvious central organizing figure, who holds
that position based on (claimed) special privileged
knowledge of law, conspiratorial government control
structures, and secret hidden histories (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, paras. 85-158). The usual practice is to
call these persons “gurus.” However, the social activity
of these gurus is little studied, as are the mechanisms
by which in-group identity and membership are
established, and discipline and orthodoxy maintained.
In short, if pseudolaw movements do operate like cults,
we, at present, understand little about the internal
anatomy and mechanics of these populations as
communities.
That lack of understanding has begun to change. This
article follows on two recent studies that evaluated
markedly different pseudolaw populations. First, the
UK and Commonwealth Magna Carta Lawful Rebels
[MCLR] claimed that an oath of fealty to Lord Craigmyle
of Invernesshire granted complete immunity from state
authority, that had, in any case, purportedly collapsed
in 2001 (Netolitzky, 2023b Netolitzky, 2023c, IV). The
MCLR was a largely online phenomenon with tens of
thousands of adherents, centered on two guru figures,
who promised seizures of government institutions,
and “the gallows” for government and court actors.
Nothing came of those plans, and, by the end of 2021,
the MCLR had essentially evaporated, despite not
having been challenged by any significant state or
