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
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
