Pseudolaw consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be based on accepted law or legal doctrine but have no actual basis in law and are generally rooted in conspiracy theories. Pseudolegal arguments deviate significantly from most conventional understandings of law and jurisprudence and often originate from non-existent statutes or legal principles. The term Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) was coined in a 2012 Canadian court decision as an umbrella term for pseudolegal tactics and arguments, and has since been used by lawyers and legal scholars in Commonwealth countries.
It may be used by people who engage in vexatious or frivolous litigation. The more extreme examples of pseudolegal tactics have been classified as paper terrorism – sheer harassment rather than a genuine attempt to argue one's legal position.
Litigants who use pseudolaw frequently rely on techniques and arguments promoted and sold – sometimes as "kits" – by amateur legal theorists, who are commonly called "gurus" by courts, scholars and media. People offering unorthodox and unlicensed legal services are likely to be charlatans or scammers.
Pseudolaw typically appeals to people seeking a remedy for their financial or legal problems, or against perceived government excesses and intrusions. It has been used to challenge certain laws, taxes and sentences, in attempts to escape debt or avoid foreclosure, as part of financial schemes, and also to deny the jurisdiction of courts or even the legitimacy of governments. It is a common tactic of tax protesters and conspiracy theorists. Journalists and scholars have described pseudolaw as so unorthodox that it more closely resembles magic ceremony or mental illness than any recognizable form of legitimate legal practice. Arguments derived from pseudolaw have never been accepted in court and can be harmful to the people using them. Pseudolitigation may also waste considerable judicial time.
History
The history of pseudolaw is poorly documented, including by its own adherents. Pseudolaw seems to have existed in the United States since the 1950s, and possibly much earlier. Idiosyncratic legal theories challenging the legitimacy of government or taxes were observed in Canada as early as the 1930s. The development of pseudolaw was fostered in the United States by the farm crisis of the late 20th century: from the 1980s, former North Dakota farmer Roger Elvick advocated fraudulent tax avoidance and anti-government schemes in what became known as the redemption movement. In Canada, local tax protesters imported fiscal misconceptions of US origin during the 1980s and 1990s. The advent of the Internet later facilitated the spreading of pseudolegal ideas and concepts, which matured around 1999–2000 in the United States, where they were at that point hosted by the sovereign citizen movement. During the same period, sovereign citizen theories were introduced into Canada, first through the "Detaxer" movement initiated by Eldon Warman, who reframed Elvick's theories and US sovereign citizen ideology to better suit a Commonwealth context. Detaxer ideology was further adapted by the freeman on the land movement, which spread to other Commonwealth countries during the 2000s. Since the late 2000s, the sovereign citizen movement has enjoyed a significant resurgence, due to the Great Recession. Later on, the COVID-19 pandemic increased the movement's spread.
The Internet has facilitated the spread of pseudolegal concepts, but also the rapid splintering of pseudolaw movements into different factions with varied, often conflicting ideologies. While the sovereign citizen movement originated in the American far right and in white supremacist ideologies, the freeman on the land movement tends to attract a left wing population and sovereign citizen concepts are now being used by African Americans and people from other minority groups. In the United States and Canada, pseudolaw has been used by Indigenous groups as well as by those claiming inauthentic indigenous identities, and by other ethnic groupings such as the "Moorish" sovereign citizens.
Outside the United States and Canada, pseudolaw has appeared in various English-speaking countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa.
Freeman on the land ideology reached the United Kingdom and Ireland in the late 2000s. Irish and British "gurus" have imported the core ideas of North American pseudolaw, while also using Ireland and UK-specific concepts and references. In Ireland, it notably developed after the burst of a real-estate bubble in the late 2000s, which drastically reduced property values, causing financial stresses and foreclosures and leading people to seek solutions to their financial woes. One striking feature of Irish pseudolaw is the appearance of a political party, Direct Democracy Ireland, created by Ben Gilroy, a promoter of anti-foreclosure concepts and conspiracy theories. As in Ireland, pseudolaw is mostly used in the UK for economic reasons, by people wishing to avoid taxes or to escape government regulations.
Pseudolaw is firmly present in Australia and New Zealand; Australia is notable for having developed its own version of pseudolaw as early as the 1980s, with local gurus devising Australia-specific schemes to defeat the government. Some Australians, however, litigate as freemen on the land. The Australian freeman on the land movement has notably recruited Indigenous Australians. Unlike in Australia, New Zealand litigants have not developed theories specific to their country and show influence from various foreign sources. Many New Zealand pseudolaw litigants, however, are Maori who base their claims on their ethnic status.
In South Africa, the author Michael Tellinger promoted schemes based on fiscal misconceptions and, purportedly, on Ubuntu philosophy; he also made an unsuccessful foray into politics by creating the Ubuntu Party. Other South African gurus show American, Canadian or British influences.
Pseudolegal theories and schemes are disseminated and advertised through websites, isolated documents, texts of varying length, seminars, radio broadcasts, instructional DVDs and, above all, YouTube videos. Litigants who use it generally dispense with real legal counsel, in part because it is unethical for lawyers to make frivolous arguments. Pseudolaw gurus may occasionally appear in court, though in most cases their followers are left to represent themselves.
Pseudolaw has been used by people wishing to ignore certain rules or to avoid inconveniences such as paying license fees and traffic tickets, but also as a means to commit serious offenses such as tax evasion or as part of fraudulent schemes like mortgage elimination.
Some groups of sovereign citizens have created "common law courts" to handle matters regarding movement members, or to issue "judgments" devoid of legal authority against real or perceived enemies. Other sham organizations created by sovereign citizens include false "arbitration" entities, which will issue "rulings" against their client's creditors or other targets.
American pseudolaw gurus have been promoting their strategies in other countries, sometimes making little or no effort to adapt their material to local contexts. This has resulted in peculiar incidents, such as Canadian litigants filing documents which alluded to U.S. legislation.
Pseudolaw has also been exported outside the English-speaking world, in countries such as Germany and Austria, where it has been adapted to culturally distinct populations. While it has thrived in some countries, it has gone quickly extinct in others such as Norway. Early attempts in Belgium and the Netherlands were unsuccessful, probably due to their not having developed appropriate schemes for local civil law jurisdictions. However, times of social or economic crisis have also allowed pseudolaw to gain traction in civil law countries. In France, pseudolegal discourses gradually became popular among conspiracy theorists during the 2010s. Notably, during the yellow vests protests it was alleged that a 2016 decree had nullified the Constitution of France by infringing on the separation of powers, thus rendering Emmanuel Macron's 2017 election invalid. The sovereign citizen movement eventually gained adherents in France, as well as in Belgium.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, pseudolegal arguments have been used by anti-mask and anti-vaccine activists in several countries. Business owners and individuals have also tried to escape coronavirus restrictions by citing irrelevant documents such as obsolete clauses of Magna Carta.
Pseudolegal doctrine and theory Judicial conceptions of pseudolaw have typically characterised pseudolegal arguments as nonsensical and motivated by desperation, mental illness, financial exploitation, conspiratorial thinking, and political extremism. Although pseudolegal arguments purport to reflect a neutral conception of the law based on natural rights, the common law, constitutionalism, and the social contract, the historical and cultural underpinnings of pseudolaw are based on conspiracy theories, and are often influenced by the radical right-wing views from proponents in the United States.
In particular, sovereign citizens often argue that, because they do not consent to the authority of the state, they are exempt from liability, believing that a "social contract" exists between an individual and the state, which can be repudiated or otherwise rendered void. One variant of this theory, known as the strawman theory, holds that every individual has both a 'flesh and blood' (physical) and 'strawman' (legal) identity, only the latter of which is subject to legal liability. More conspiratorial variants of pseudolaw may hold that the jurisdiction of the state is entirely illegitimate or invalid due to pseudohistorical reasons.
The predominant response of state officials, including judges and law enforcement authorities, to pseudolegal proponents characterises the contemporary political movement as abusive to legal processes and potentially conducive to political violence and domestic terrorism. An article in Journal of Law and Society criticised this approach as overly dismissive and argued that while pseudolegal theories have no legitimacy, more effort should be made to understand and analyze the viewpoints of their proponents. Some legal scholars have also conceptualised pseudolaw as an alternative legal system itself, with some adherents espousing an alternative theory of law that claims to be legitimate.
Legal history Pseudolaw theories often trace their historical origin to the Bible, medieval English common law, and the United States Constitution.
Pseudolegal arguments are often predicated on a pseudohistorical view of the past that holds that the jurisdiction of a state is invalid or otherwise illegitimate.
Pseudolaw comprises false, purported legal rules that fail to conform to the standards of ordinary law. Pseudolegal arguments are often made in the absence of relevant case law and misinterpret real legal doctrines in unconventional ways. Pseudolaw, like pseudoscience, is often used by gurus as a kind of quackery or snake oil scam to sell courses or other products for financial gain. Pseudolegal thought is also pseudohistorical, relying on distorted views of the history of Anglo-American common law.
Common beliefs
Donald J. Netolitzky has identified six core concepts in what he calls the "Pseudolaw Memeplex":