International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 2
Pseudolaw’s approach to contracts is largely recognizable
to those familiar with the dominant UK-derived
common law and European civil law legal traditions.
But pseudolaw’s version of contract rules includes
a number of variations that are different from, and
rejected by, mainstream legal systems and courts. One
example is whether or not “silence means agreement.”
Contract formation involves several parts. The first is
the “offer”: party A proposes an arrangement of goods
and/or services in exchange for something from party
B. Party B then can accept or reject the offer. If the offer
proposed by party A is accepted by party B, then “a
contract” has been formed. That contract binds both
A and B.
Conventional legal systems almost universally demand
that the “acceptance” of the offer is a positive step (e.g.,
in Canada, reviewed in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB
571, paras. 447-528). In conventional legal systems, if
an offer were to include a part that states “here is the
offer, and if I do not hear from you in 30 days, my offer is
accepted and the contract is now binding,” then courts
would reject that component of the offer. A contract
offer cannot unilaterally bind party B, if party B does
not do or say anything. A “silence means agreement”
term is not valid and enforceable. Pseudolaw, however,
takes the opposite branch, and, based on a dubious
foundation of misquoted and obsolete legal concepts,
says that silence is, indeed, agreement (Netolitzky,
2018d, pp. 1049-1051). This example illustrates how
pseudolaw sometimes differs from conventional
law. Pseudolaw has rules, but some of those rules
apply different principles or a different test, and, as a
consequence, come to different results.
All law functions as a kind of social engineering. So why
are the contract rules different in law vs pseudolaw? The
reason is that a “silence means agreement” rule makes
paper weapons powerful. “Silence means agreement”
permits a person to unilaterally force obligations on
others. For example, in pseudolaw, a person sued to pay
an outstanding debt could send the lender a document
that says:
You have 30 days to prove the money you loaned
me is real lawful money, founded on precious
metals, and not worthless fiat currency. If you
do not prove that, you agree my debt does not
exist.
Since modern currencies no longer operate on the gold
standard, demanding proof in this way--and with the
rule that “silence means agreement”--would miracle
away debts and obtain money for nothing. Or at least
that is the theory. This kind of foisted documentary
claim is a quite commonplace pseudolaw strategy to
eliminate debts based on spurious financial concepts
(Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, para. 227 Netolitzky,
2018d, p. 1064), but never works.
“Silence means agreement” has a dark side, too,
which is why this rule is consistently rejected by
mainstream legal systems. Every day would require
endless vigilance, to detect and reject contract offers.
Documents concealed within an unopened envelope
could unilaterally impose unwanted services. An
unanswered telephone call might create a contract.
And pseudolaw adherents take this principle even
further, imagining “Invisible Contracts” that result
from apparently innocent acts, like using a postal
code purportedly creates government jurisdiction and
authority via a concealed trickster’s bargain (Meads
v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, paras. 231-234 Netolitzky,
2021, p. 179).
But not all pseudolaw operates simply on the basis
that law took a different path when legal rules were
developed in past centuries. Some aspects of pseudolaw
are probably best described as magic (Dew, 2016, pp.
87-91 Netolitzky, 2018d Wessinger, 2000, p. 160).
For example, some pseudolaw documents cannot,
rationally, have the claimed effect and authority,
and can only be explained as sympathetic magic
(Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1053-1056). Other pseudolaw
practices appear to be “cargo cult” imitations of
processes pseudolaw’s users did not understand, but
were perceived as having importance and/or power
(Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1057-1069).
Strangest of all is the one unique aspect of pseudolaw
that has no parallel in any other legal system: the
Strawman Theory doppelganger (reviewed in d’Abadie
v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298, paras. 57-
70 Kalinowski, 2019, pp. 158-164 Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, paras. 417-446 Netolitzky, 2018d, pp.
1069-1078 Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency),
2017 ABQB 123, paras. 67-88 Rothweiler v Payette,
2018 ABQB 134, paras. 10-17 Rothweiler v Payette,
2018 ABQB 399, paras. 25-33).

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 3
There is no “real world” legal antecedent or parallel to
the Strawman. Strawman Theory is purely a pseudolaw
construct. Strawman Theory is also second-order
pseudolaw, since Strawman Theory is constructed atop
false claims concerning government, state authority,
and contract law. One aspect that makes Strawman
Theory particularly strange is that if Strawman
Theory really worked in the common law tradition,
and allowed one to shed your “legal personality,” then
that step would not result in extraordinary freedom,
but, instead, the human would be property: a slave
(Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB
123, paras. 88-95). Fortunately, this rejection of legal
status is not possible under modern law.
The Strawman mesmerizes pseudolaw’s promoters and
adherents. Though there is no historical basis for the
Strawman, Strawman Theory is present in practically
all known pseudolaw schemes, worldwide. Why that
would be the case is difficult to understand, though
one possibility is this component of pseudolaw is
redemption via ritual magic the Strawman is a law-
styled myth of clandestine possession, exorcism, and
secret knowledge (Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1069-1078).
In short, while pseudolaw is a legal system, it is a
strange one. Although its users and proponents put
great effort into presenting pseudolaw as having
antecedents and a basis grounded in history, traditional
law, legal decisions, and other generally accepted legal
references, much of pseudolaw has a far more tenuous
foundation. Obviously, the thin basis for these schemes
has not precluded substantial success for pseudolaw in
the marketplace of ideas.
B. Pseudolaw has a Story
Pseudolaw operates in a competition of two laws. In
that competition, pseudolaw teaches that one law is
propagated by authorities to the ordinary person. This
“regular law” is portrayed by state and institutional
actors as the natural and universally accepted rules that
govern societal conduct. This first law is government-
made, but, according to pseudolaw narratives, that
state-made law is in some sense limited or defective.
Despite what the masses are told, that “regular law” is not
actually binding on human beings. Pseudolaw schemes
claim that there is a second additional, different, and
more fundamental law, a law that has been hidden away
from the public. The names of these two kinds of law
differ depending on what specific pseudolaw scheme
one follows. Commonly the state-made optional law is
called “admiralty law,” “maritime law,” “law merchant,”
“military law,” “martial law,” “commercial law,” “Roman
civil law,” or simply “legislation.” The concealed but
true and superior law is usually called “common law,”
but sometimes “natural law,” “God’s law,” or “equity.”
Pseudolaw schemes always have a story (Netolitzky,
2018c, p. 9), a conspiratorial narrative of how people
became trapped within their current status, where
false, illegitimate authority has denied and crushed
everyone’s actual inherent legal rights:
1. At one time the law was good. People lived in
a free, fair, and just regime, ruled by
legitimate law and authorities. In that
age, those people had more freedom
than is permitted in our modern society.
2. A new scheme of law and rules was imposed
by nefarious actors that resulted in the
current system of rules that are
tyrannical and unjust, and which steal
away peoples’ legitimate rights. The
process that suppressed the true law
was hidden or disguised. As a
consequence, people are in a prison
of illegitimate authority, however, they
are unaware of that truth.
3. The hidden away good law remains supreme.
If one knows the correct methods, you
can drill down through the false law to
the original true and just legal system.
4. Pseudolaw’s techniques allows one to remove
the false legal authority imposed by
the illegitimate law, and achieve the
greater freedom and rights that were
always there to be claimed. You just have
to invoke the true law, though
governments and other bad actors will
resist attempts to defeat and nullify the
superficial false-law’s authority.
The stories of how the true law was sequestered away
and suppressed exist in many different forms. Each