Inquiries concerning the history and current state of UK pseudolaw communities

[DNetolitzky]

Hi folks,

First, a brief introduction. I'm a lawyer who works at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and one of my areas of interest is pseudolaw, its concepts, practitioners, and associated communities. I have written a number of papers on this subject area, which can be viewed at this website (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald_Netolitzky).

The reason I am starting this thread is because I am working on a new project, a paper which attempts to track the spread of pseudolaw internationally, the 'microevolution' that has occurred with these ideas in different locations, and to document how pseudolaw has 'grown roots' or died off in different locations and scenarios. This paper is intended to be part of a book published to document the research presented at a sociology conference coming up later this year which will examine the Freeman subject area. While my previous writing has been principally intended for a 'legal' audience, the paper I am working on will hopefully have a broader potential application.

I'm not a social scientist, so I will not be intruding (too much) into their domain. Instead, I am hoping to provide the social sciences community with some useful context. My chief goals are to document:

1. What are the key concepts in modern pseudolaw, and how those are relevant to the goals of host populations?

2. How pseudolaw has competed with similar concepts, evolved, and in some cases gone extinct or driven other competing motifs into extinction.

3. Survey what jurisdictions and social communities have been exposed to pseudolaw, what happened in those locations, and the global current state of affairs.

So, a problem has emerged in relation to this project. I'm a Canadian and obviously it is not easy for me to know what is going on 'on the ground' in other jurisdictions. Sometimes I have access to useful secondary resources on this subject area (e.g. the Republic of Ireland) or there is a nice record of accessible case law (e.g. Australia).

But the UK is a bit of a challenge, since there is neither. Lucky for me, there are you folks at Quatloos, and I'm here to pick your collective brains, which I hope you don't mind.

My first general question is the origin of UK pseudolaw. From my investigation so far it seems to me that pseudolegal concepts were principally initially derived from Canada. The older gurus (Harris, Haining, Witterick, Chapman) all point directly to Canadian sources, and usually Robert Arthur Menard. You folks even managed to acquire one of our local talents, Kate of Gaia/Keith Thompson. Do you agree that there has been comparatively minimal direct US to UK transfer of pseudolaw?

My second inquiry is that it seems in the UK pseudolaw is being used for different purpose(s) than in Canada. When I look at UK pseudolaw activity it seems to me that the principle host population was at least initially mainly concentrated in a lower or stressed socioeconomic level, and the most common ways pseudolaw is employed in the UK is:

1. as a defence vs foreclosure,

2. to nullify debts, and

3. as a mechanism to challenge taxes.

I am also aware of some reported cases that document UK pseudolaw being used to challenge state authority in child protection and seizure steps.

On the 'taxes' point, it seems the typical application of pseudolaw is not vs income tax but instead local council taxes. Am I correct on that? And in that case, should I be grouping items 2 and 3 together on that list?

In Canada a lot of pseudolaw litigants do use those concepts as a defence vs debt collectors, but it seems to be not particularly 'ideological', but rather desperate or greedy people trying to stiff their lenders. The largest proportion of Freeman-type litigation in Canada is instead using pseudolaw as a 'get out of jail free' card vs criminal activity, particularly illegal drug-related misconduct. That latter application does not seem to be reflected in the UK, from what I have observed.

My third inquiry is about who are the important actors / sources in the UK. It looks like there were several waves:

First wave:

John Harris - TPUC

Witterick and Haining - GOODF

Victoria Chapman - FMOTL.com

The first wave appears to be essentially defunct (in Harris' case, literally) - any opinions to the contrary? Am I missing anyone?

Second wave:

Peter of England - WeRe Bank

Kate of Gaia

Carl (Karl) Lentz

I know Kate continues in its particular track, and Peter makes periodic attempts at restarting his enterprise, but did Lentz have any lasting effect, or is he basically now a forgotten figure, once no one could retrace his steps to the Legendary Court of Queen's Bench?

Current wave:

The Lawful Dissent group

The White Pendragons

Are there any other gurus/groups I should be looking into?

One of the points I plan to highlight in my paper is that one of the real distinctions between the UK and Canada is that in the UK there has been a certain degree of popular social support for pseudolaw practitioners. Tom Crawford is the type example I plan to highlight. That is very different from the situation in Canada where once the Freemen 'surfaced' they were pretty much universally rejected by all branches of the Canadian public. Would you say the sympathy for Crawford is better described as 'economic', or is this more of a 'class/social' question? Or something else?

Another likely superficial observation on my part is that the pseudolaw community in the UK is shifting from a 'leftist' perspective to the right, with the White Pendragons probably being the best example of the latter. Any observations on that?

Another in my apparently unending series of questions is what is the role of David Icke in all of this? In Canada he was a pretty significant factor in the early 2000s in both our Detaxer and Freeman populations, but not so much in spreading pseudolaw as providing a conspiratorial 'foundation' for it. Did Icke have much to do with introducing pseudolaw into the UK?

Beyond that, I'm eager to obtain whatever insights you have to share. I believe that pseudolaw becomes associated with / infects anti-state and dissident communities, and the result is often quite different and takes on interesting national or local characteristics. One really neat example I have identified is that when pseudolaw reached Australia it spawned a substantial collection of 'one man countries' and other 'mini-states'. I'm not aware of that occurring in any other jurisdiction - there is only one example of that theme in Canada. So I'd be delighted to hear any thoughts about what makes UK pseudolaw, its communities, and personalities 'special'.

Please presume I'm a basically uneducated North American hick colonial who knows little about UK society and its quirks (though that is not entirely true because I worked at a military facility in south eastern Alberta for many years that each summer experienced multiple incursions of thousands of UK tankers...)

Thank you all in advance for your help. I expect I will probably be poking back in periodically to quiz you about ideas, individuals, and all manner of other subjects.

Donald Netolitzky

[Burnaby49]

I have it from reliable sources that Netolitzky is a committed beer drinker. Not to my level of achievment of course but there's no shame in that; he's still employed and has to get to work every morning. So he has my endorsement. Also he writes damn good papers on a topic nobody else seems to concern themselves with. Maybe because he works in the court of the dread Judge Rooke, the author of Meads v Meads and multiple other decisions that he's inflicted on multitudes of Freemen.

For enquiring minds I'm writing this with a Central City Red Racer Raspberry Wheat Ale in front of me.

Style: American Pale Wheat Ale

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 5.00%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
Infused with raspberries from the Fraser Valley, this wheat ale is crisp and clean with a subtle fruitiness. The toasted crystal malt from England balances the natural acidity of the raspberries producing a beer that is refreshing and a delightful taste experience.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I was most impressed by the paper Pseudo-law as Magic. If the proposed research is half as good it will be a tour de force. I am presently half asleep, considering the questions asked should see me fully asleep again but I will be back when fully conscious.
This promises to be very interesting.

[ArthurWankspittle]

On the 'taxes' point, it seems the typical application of pseudolaw is not vs income tax but instead local council taxes. Am I correct on that? And in that case, should I be grouping items 2 and 3 together on that list?

My first thought on that is the relevance to the protester. In most cases they will either have taxes deducted at source by their employer, which they can't do much about, or they don't earn enough for it to matter. Council tax on the other hand must cost the average SovCit going on £100 per month, so it is a big cut of their income. Although in some cases it is paid by benefits.

[SteveUK]

Greetings! Another couple of angles you might want to explore on the UK front are:

Brexit - this is often seen as some sort of antichrist in terms of sovereignty , and a lot of the bigger groups seems to focus specifically on this.

Peadophiles - uk FMOTL have an unhealthy obsession with this, believing that anyone in power must be a kiddie fiddler.

Satanic Organisations - check out the Neelu Berry / Hoaxted scam that seems to rattle on still. They see the devil in all sorts of stuff.

Fake Courts - not unique to the UK, but look up the common law court ,cocoa interspace and expert in all legal matters.

Documented sources - you can drop any FMOTL terms into the following to see how the law handles them:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ where people end up in the first instance to challenge failed FMOTL efforts.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ where you can ask public organisations anything you like.
http://www.bailii.org/ our law database that includes written judgements.



My personal line is that 90% of it is just a tax/debt/fine avoiding effort. Very few actually believe in the garbage. The UK tax/legal system is generally very tolerant of these loons, although it does feel like the tide is turning.

re:TC. His FMOTL leanings weren't public when he called for support. Now the truth is out his fanbase has collapsed. The dragons prey on peoples Brexit fears, whilst the Neelu/SRA gang are, in my humble opinion, true believer.

Happy hunting!

[King Lud]

I don't think there's ever really been a left wing stance by advocates of pseudo law in the UK. There has always been a strong element of anti-Semitism and more recently anti-Islam. People like Haining have been quite open about their admiration for Hitler.

[HardyW]

Greetings too from me in southern England.

1. My first observation is that your introduction to us does not mention the internet/web at all. This is fundamental to the spread of these ideas, no doubt there were similar movements before the WWW but the ability to disseminate ideas around the country/world depends on the web.

2. That being said, it is easy to find on the web places where distinction by country does not seem to exist. For example the TDA scam is clearly US-specific and yet you see people on those Youtube channels asking for equivalent instructions "how do I access my account if I live in UK/Aus/Israel/South Africa?" and getting the answer "we are still researching that". Or look at the original GOODF site (if it is still accessible) to see people from the same places trying to use UK-designed templates.

3. British Constitution Group should get a mention on your list. Because this country is supposedly the birthplace of "common law", Magna Carta etc, there is more use of those concepts and more "confidence" in seeking to use the supposed unchanging principles, a constable must act on his oath, a court case requires an injured party etc.

4. I wonder if you are paying too much attention to Quatloos! Notably when you single out Tom Crawford, I know he has been covered very extensively here but have no idea whether his case is notable more generally as there are of course thousands of eviction cases a year many of which are challenged in various ways by the "victims". See Goodf again for many of these.

5. I agree with you that US->UK transmission has not been overwhelming, perhaps an exception is the birth certificate stuff, which seems to me to originate in the US and the myth of the "bankruptcy or the USA" in various years from 1871 to 1933 or beyond. So you see very strained attempts to translate that into the UK coming off the gold standard, and the goodf promotion of A4V, send back the remittance slip (which "is really a cheque") from your utility bill with an instruction to pay it from your account at the treasury identified by your NI number.

And so on.

[HardyW]

I don't think there's ever really been a left wing stance by advocates of pseudo law in the UK. There has always been a strong element of anti-Semitism and more recently anti-Islam. People like Haining have been quite open about their admiration for Hitler.

All these arguments depend on your definition of left (and right). The common elements of disdain for the rule of law is one shared by the anarchist movement, which would probably be regarded as (extreme?) left. I can imagine anarchists adopting the theory that all governments are part of a global conspiracy, working for the benefit of global corporations not for the people. "Whoever you vote for, the government gets in" is an anarchist slogan which could be used by any of these groups. But among the anarchist material I see there is little to suggest they are racist in any way whereas some of the FMOTL types clearly are.

[TheNewSaint]

I haven't seen the "Chartists" group mentioned yet. I think they overlap with the BCG, but seem to be a different group.

[wserra]

I'm writing this with a Central City Red Racer Raspberry Wheat Ale in front of me.

Please tell me that it isn't a framboise. Blech.

Burnaby and Donald are the two most dedicated anti-sovs I know. Since Burnaby is retired, Donald takes the brass ring. Please do whatever you can for him.

Sorry, Burnaby. But relax, have a beer. And JJ - if you want to be in the running, you gotta start posting again.

[AndyPandy]

I think another aspect is the mental health issues / paranoia (cannabis induced in some?) of some FMOTL and the impact this has on beliefs, from chem trails, poison in the water, conspiracy theories, to the fears they are being thought controlled through rays / wireless by the TPTB.

There's an inherent distrust of all things State and an absolute trust in all things YTube.

In someone like Tom, he was desparate for a solution which couldn't involve ever admitting he was wrong (personality trait?) and therefore, the bank must have conspired to 'steal' his home. He wouldn't / couldn't accept any form or thought of group funding / JustGiving, as he absolutely believed he'd paid off his mortgage and that would be an acceptance he'd got it drastically wrong.

Neelu / Abel and their beliefs are also good examples of individuals with mental health issues and how this spills over into their bizarre actions / beliefs.

[AndyK]

FWIW, I believe sovereignism, pseudo-law, and the other related topics are merely the decorative icing.

One needs to look at the cake to try and put the pieces together.

What follows is a rambling, disjointed list of (what appears to me) of related, relatively common factors.

First, I am disregarding the gurus and snake oil hucksters. I believe most of them have the equivalent of a dog's sense of smell for detecting suckers and are in it for nothing more than separating the marks from their funds.

So what makes one of them?

Loser, financially, socially, or employment -- but its always someone else's fault

The someone else (depending on the particular background and bigotry of the loser) could be Jews, Muslims, immigrants, or anyone outside their heritage.

Another factor is what the losers lost. Child protective services, driving license, money to tax collectors, nasty divorce

The key factor in all of this is "It's not my fault. Someone else is to blame." Then they find an Internet-based circle of like-minded losers with suggestions as to solutions -- all of which have nice words wrapped around them -- usually above he comprehension level of the loser.

Again; FWIW.

[Burnaby49]

I'm writing this with a Central City Red Racer Raspberry Wheat Ale in front of me.

Please tell me that it isn't a framboise. Blech.

Burnaby and Donald are the two most dedicated anti-sovs I know. Since Burnaby is retired, Donald takes the brass ring. Please do whatever you can for him.

Sorry, Burnaby. But relax, have a beer. And JJ - if you want to be in the running, you gotta start posting again.

After all my years of dedicated service to Quatloos you make a public comment like that? A Framboise?

In English, framboise is used primarily in reference to a Belgian lambic beer that is fermented using raspberries,[1] It is one of many modern types of fruit beer that have been inspired by the more traditional kriek beer, which is made using sour cherries.

Framboise is usually served in a small glass that resembles a champagne glass, only shorter (could also be a goblet). Most framboise beers are quite sweet, though the Cantillon Brewery produces a tart version called Rosé de Gambrinus that is based on the traditional kriek style. The Liefmans brewery uses oud bruin beer instead of lambic to make its framboise beer, resulting in a very different taste.

Is that how you see me? Daintily sipping a sickly sweet concoction from a champagne glass while I ponder the nuances of the unique flavour bestowed on the numbered batch by the vagaries of the wild yeast? Perhaps wearing a silk burgundy smoking jacket while Gregorian chants from the Trappist monks at Achel waft from the sound system?

As Quatloosians know, and some can personally attest, I'm a guzzler, not a dilettante. I have a personal ethos, once I order a beer I drink it. There have been very few times that I've thrown out a beer after buying it. One occasion was a disgustingly sweet framboise with an overwhelming fruit flavour. Vancouver craft brewers are very fond, as are their customers, of fruit nuanced beers, generally wheat ales. However they are very subtle about it. Often the fruit is almost indiscernible. I get off the bus when they try their hands at pineapple and banana but the raspberry and orange infusions can be excellent. Perhaps the most refreshing beers I can remember having are a blood orange radler from Strathcona Breweries and an orange wheat from Callisters. My Red Racer from last night has a definite raspberry presence but it was background and, apart from that, it's a standard wheat ale.

As far as comparing me to Donald Netolitzky goes, really? I'm just a dabbler while The Donald works in the belly of the beast, the scourge of Freemen everywhere, the Alberta Court of Queen's bench. Compared to that it's like boasting that I was a participant at D-day because I was a cook on the HMS Rodney while it was bombarding the landing sites when Donald was in the first wave ashore at Juno Beach.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The appeal of pseudolaw seems to be limited in the main to poor, and poorly educated people and rather oddly, a few reasonably affluent people, quite often professionaly qualified who have at one point simply gone off the rails and never looked back. Examples are Mr Eburt, Neelu Berry(Pharmacist), Mr Ellis (solicitor), Anal Sheik (solicitor) Rekah Patel (teacher) and someone whose name escapes me for a moment (financial adviser). All the professional victims are well enough documented by independent reports from courts and professional discipliary hearings to trace the affliction back to a point where one thing, one bad decision, seems to have started the wreckage of their careers and lives. The common factor is a pig headed resolve to plough ahead when any sensible person could have salvaged the situation.

The major appeal seems to have been to the poor who found any plan to fend off creditors attractive and who may have put more belief into the nonsense than they might have done because it would assuage any feelings of guilt about not paying debts that they may have got from thier parents and old relatives. It seems to me that the universal lack of success of the woo has led to a pragmatic rejection of it that means it is less noticeable nowadays. The remaining advocates are, it seems to me. in the guru or would be guru class who are still pitching the woo because it is what they do. Often there is no trace of them doing anything else anyway. They do not usually have a back up position or income apart from state benefits. ( I may simply be seeing less because they are more Facebook than You Tube nowadays.)
Something that cannot help spread the word is the extreme physical and personal unattractiveness of the would be preachers. Negative charisma about sums it up.

More later

[Footloose52]

The IFA (Independent Financial Adviser) was Anthony Badaloo. There is some useful documentation on the FCA website around the withdrawal of his 'Permissions', that is his permission to carry on trade as an IFA in the UK.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/fina ... e-2017.pdf

[AndyK]

Perhaps the beer discussion should be split off to the GOOD LIFE forum.

I will do so if a senior moderator instructs me.

However, to continue the analysis of brewew beverages; I have one basic rule: I never drink anything that I can see through. Stouts, porters, black ales, and heavy IPAs all pass this test. There are many others which have enough body to pass this simple test.

FWIW, last night I dined at a local brewery/restaurant and had a 10 oz serving of a chocolate stout aged in bourbon barrels: 12.5% ABV. I almost had to use a knife and fork to consume it. And only $4.50 (US) happy hour price.

[Burnaby49]

I don't think Donald, as a beer drinker, minds the minor diversion.

[DNetolitzky]

Thanks to everyone for your replies - I very much appreciate all your observations and very kind words.

First, on the all-important booze front, I am not at all troubled by Burnaby49 immediately drifting off into a discourse on his favourite fermented products. I too am a social beer consumer, though not to the same rarified degree as The Master of All Pubs. Edmonton lacks Vancouver's range of opportunities and alternatives. But when I'm writing it's vodka by preference, and I do have to admit a nasty habit of becoming quite enthused about trying some of the weirder variations on that product. Like Nemiroff's really peculiar but subtly excellent birch-flavoured vodka. On the less successful end I recently tried a local saskatoon berry vodka that might as well have been paint thinner.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

First, thanks for confirming my suspicion that in the UK the chief application of pseudolaw seems to be debt avoidance, and from the lower affluence groups, with a few outliers. Would it be fair to say these individuals are working class, or 'welfare and government aid class', or both? In Canada the many of the diehards largely live off government and disability payments. Or are criminals. Or both.

The limited US influence again is what I suspected, though HardyW observed there seems to be some exchange between jurisdictions and I would very much agree with that.

Going a bit into the thesis of my planned paper, my suggestion is that around 2000 a collection of pseudolaw ideas developed in the US Sovereign Citizen community "crystallized" into a core Pseudolaw Memeplex, and then that Memeplex has subsequently spread from country to country, community to community. Not much of it changes during that process. The result is a surprisingly consistent international 'alternative' legal system - so at least when it comes to pseudolaw theory and terminology, widely different groups often speak the same basic 'lingo', and can understand and use each other's sources.

HardyW observed that A4V in the UK looks very American - and that doesn't surprise me, because you really need some of the weird conspiratorial backstory which is US-specific to make A4V 'work' to the notational (imaginary) degree that it does. In Canada we have had lots of A4V jurisprudence but, intriguingly, most is just badly adapted US schemes, or US schemes used on the basis that apparently Canada is just an additional sub-component of the US. Canada has never developed a 'localized' A4V scheme, though Menard did start along that direction with his "Security of the Person" schtick. It didn't really go anywhere, and instead the Canadian Freemen became endlessly enthralled with promissory notes.

Anyways, the gist of my thought on this point is that once you get pseudolaw into a jurisdiction, the local adherents now can 'speak' and 'comprehend' pseudolaw from most other infected jurisdictions. It's just it is a lot easier to introduce Canadianized pseudolaw into, say, England, than the original US Sovereign Citizen form. Let alone the Moorish variants.

It's interesting how long the 'chain of transmission' can sometimes be. A couple years ago I spotted a local pseudolaw Traveller who turned out to have absolutely no social connections to the local pseudolaw populations. That was weird, so after a bit of investigation I figured out the Alberta Traveller had gotten his ideas from Santos Bonacci (Australia), who got his ideas from Kate of Gaia (UK/Canada), who got its ideas from Rob Menard (Canada, Freeman), who got his ideas from Eldon Warman (Canada, Detaxer), who got his ideas from the US Sovereign Citizens. But if you didn't know that narrative there was pretty much nothing in the Alberta Traveller's documents and spiel to distinguish him from a video of a Florida Sovereign arguing with the local police.

After reading the comments by SteveUK, King Lud, HardyW, AndyPandy, AndyK on the political affiliation of the UK pseudolaw types, I should explain that my impression of a leftish orientation is based on a pretty superficial review of the local resources and reports of how the initial public appearances of Freemanism in the UK were associated with the Occupy Movement. I probably should focus instead on the economic linkage rather than politics.

It seems perhaps best to say that the UK Freemen and Canadian Freemen are not so different in that sense. The question of the political character of these people is one that has resulted in some fun arguments with the social scientists who are looking into this Canadian Freemen. They started looking at the Freemen expecting to find a very right-wing phenomenon, which didn't play out. Overall, the observations were confusing. On one hand it is very clear that Canadian Freemanism started out with a very 'leftish' 'hippy' 'pothead' orientation, but even from the start, there were, and are, a lot of outliers. Viewed from a distance, there is a kind of norm, but, as you look closer, the community is more of a cloud that anything else.. Similarly, the US Sovereigns and Moors have norms, but probably again a lot of diversity that is not obvious at a first glance.

But AndyPandy observed "There's an inherent distrust of all things State", and I think that may be better way to look at these people, pretty much anywhere. Their beliefs are not so much political in orientation as reactionary and conspiratorial. They are not really much "for" things,except for free stuff, "Respect Mah Authority!", and "I Do What I Want!" - perhaps Freemanism is better titled Organized Cartmanism? So much of their efforts are reacting against a wide array of perceived ills, slights, and imagined dark designs. One of the big 'ah ha' moments for me was when I read Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy - which I highly, highly recommend - and saw how he had describes a worldview that assimilates all forms of nuttiness indiscriminately, and then housed all that strangeness under the roof of an unfocused general paranoid conspiracy where a vast distributed hidden hand will bring on a terrible new tyranny. That, quite neatly, captured the people I was studying. They voraciously consumed any conspiracy, any paranoia, anything the mainstream has rejected. Barkun explains how that works, but the result is so very alien to me, personally.

I think that also is reflected in SteveUK's observation that these folks become endlessly fascinated with many different conspiracies and paranoias: Brexit, Pedophiles, Satanic Ritual Abuse groups.

And that leads to the question of mental health issues. There isn't much psychiatric writing about pseudolaw communities, yet, but what I have found (Jennifer Pytyck & Gary A Chaimowitz, "The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial" (2013) 12 Intl J of Forensic Mental Health 149; George F Parker, "Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations of Sovereign Citizens: A Case Series and Primer of Odd Political and Legal Beliefs" (2014) 42:3 J Am Acad Psychiatry L 338) says that what we are observing is extreme political belief. It's extreme enough, and the lingo they use is weird enough, that it looks like a mental health issue, but in truth, it isn't. I'm going to pick on the psychiatrists a bit because it seems to me that at a certain point extreme beliefs, no matter if you call them political or religious, end up being irrational.

That said, I get it. I've spent so much time on pseudolaw forums that I just don't really think it's weird that people believe the US army is going to sweep up God-fearing gun owners and put them in converted Walmart concentration camps. Or that aircraft secretly spray chemicals in contrails to make me infertile. Or that Queen Elizabeth II is a shape-shifting reptile. In an absolute sense it's weird, but for these people these ideas have become normalized. I could go on and on, but if you're here on Quatloos, you're probably by now used to this bizarre and open-ended collection of weird beliefs.

It's uncomfortable to imagine pseudolaw is rational to these people, but I think it's just not that different from the remainder of their lives. I've had some very interesting discussions with judges since I came to the conclusion that a substantial chunk of pseudolaw is better thought of as magic than anything else. The judges hate that - it's so opposite to the ways they are used to ordering their world(s) - but, nevertheless, it seems we have magicians in court. Good thing we have our counterspells like "Summon Sheriffs" and "Dispell Fee Schedule" and "Order of Costs".

A number of the Canadian sociologists who are looking into this domain are cult experts, and they clearly are identifying parallels between pseudolaw communities and 'new religion' groups. It's no so much content of the ideas, but rather how the groups evolve and are structured. For example, the failure of Canadian Freemanism arguably has less to do with the fact it's ideas didn't work (after all a lot of cult ideas don't work) but instead the fact that no level of trusted intermediaries emerged to insulate the leader from the rank and file. I think we may see some really interesting publications as the specialists in unusual groups dig deeper into this phenomenon.

I'm rambling so I'll cut it off with simply this: it's probably safe to say that people who gravitate to these concepts and are true believers are anti-government, reactionary, and highly prone to conspiratorial and magical thinking.

There definitely are others who are just in it for the goodies, but they drop off fast when results do not appear. In Canada we had a discrete set of gurus and ideas (Detaxers) between around 2000 and 2008 that were directed only towards evading income tax, and when the taxman came calling, the Detaxers disappeared quite abruptly. I would not be surprised if the UK is moving through that process of those mercenaries trying things out, and then dropping off.

Again, thanks for the tips on the fake courts, British Constitution Group, and the Chartists! I'll be a pest if I have difficulty in tracking down their resources. Speaking of resources, have any of the UK gurus written books? I much prefer those to watching Youtube videos... I have one by Chapman and the GOODF guidebooks. Any others that anyone could suggest?

I really, really am tired of watching pseudolaw videos...

Donald

[Siegfried Shrink]

A quick thought on the political aspect. In the US it seems not uncommon for fans of the two parties to be extremely polarised, so it is not a big step to be convinced that the other party are the spawn of the devil, capable of anything and actively working to ruin the economy and destroy the people.
It would be natural that such extreme positions should infuse the sov-cit woo, but my observation is that even in so highly charged an environment, there is little overt politics.
The minor guru April LaJune
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=11611
Is a case in point. She seems to keep the rabidly rightwing views that she blogs ad lib. out of her efforts to push TDA accounts, secured party creditor and other woo to any suckers willing to cough up some cash. Does she realise that party politics have no place in confidence trickery?

The British political scene has no such extreme polarisation, as far as I know. There is abuse back and forth but it is more of the nature you might reserve for someone with a really silly haircut or a penchant for Bermuda shorts.

In my opinion, much woo can be traced back to whoever it was to first find and then misrepresent the Cestui Qui Vie act of 1666.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... 60011_en_1
Which is simple piece of legislation dealng with the disposition of the estates of missing persons.
By adding a few simple embellishments that were not too far removed from the actual wording, , meaning and history, many persistent ideas were introduced. One is the notion that Admiralty law applies to everything, another is the birth trust that you can reclaim. I believe that complications multiply, that the simplest form of an organism or idea is the earliest form, and I have spent a fair amount of time trying to trace the earliest mention of the CQV Trust scam.
Here is a chunk of someone's introduction to it.

In 1666, in London, during the black plague, and great fires of london Parliament enacted an act, behind closed doors, called Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatute...

The act being debated the Cestui Qui act was to subrogate the rights of men and women, meaning all men and women were declared dead, lost at sea/beyond the sea. (back then operating in admiralty law, the law of the sea, so lost at sea).

The state (of London) took custody of everybody and their property into a trust, the state became the trustee/husband holding all titles to the people and property, until a living man comes back to reclaim those titles and can also claim damages. (Reclaim using UCC 1 and PPSA)

The rule of the use of CAPITAL LETTERS used in a NAME: when CAPITAL letters re used anywhere in a NAME this always refers to a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION, COMPANY or CORPORATION no exceptions.

e.g. John DOE or Doe: JANE (PASSPORT, DRIVER LICENSE, MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE and BIRTH CERTIFICATE)

CEST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced setakay) common term in NEW ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA or STRAWMAN common term in USA or CANADA is a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION created and owned by the GOVERNMENT whom created it. I repeat owned by the GOVERNMENT.

Legally, we are considered to be a FICTION, a concept or idea expressed as a NAME, a symbol. That LEGAL PERSON has no consciousness; it is a juristic PERSON, ENS LEGIS, a NAME/word written on a piece of paper.

This traces back to 1666, London is a state, just like Vatican is a state, just like Washington DC is a state. The Crown is an unincorporated association. Why unincorporated, its private, the temple bar is in London, every lawyer called to the "bar" swears allegiance to the temple bar. You can't get called, without swearing this allegiance. The Crown already owns North America and everything in it.

Your only way out is to reclaim your dead entity (strawman) that the Crown created, become the trustee of the cest tui qui trust and remove yourself from the admiralty law that holds you in custody.
The subrogation of your rights
When London burned the subrogation of mens and womens rights occurred.
The responsible act passed... CQV act 1666 meant all men and women of UK were declared dead and lost beyond the seas.  The state took everybody and everybody's property into trust.  The state takes control until a living man or woman comes back and claims their titles by proving they are alive and claims for damages can be made.

What we have here is a relatively late version where the core concepts are mentioned but imported nonsense has been added to the original pure nonsense, as if it has been on holiday abroad and come back with a ludicus stuffed donkey in a Spanish hat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWDDHTGgVhM&t=61s
This is a 2011 repost of an earlier video that I found and have now lost, with some shit for brains British pundit churning out a fairly pure version of the CQV nonsense. After 20 minutes it has been spliced onto another video from a later date which I think is John Harris.

I will continue to look for the earlier version. I do not know who the two speakers are but they both give me the impression of spinning a rehearsed yarn rather than actually believing any of the stuff they say.

[longdog]

I've been thinking for a while that what we really need is an A-2-Z of all the different past and present woos and a line or two of basic explanation of how it 'works'. Every so often I see something pop up again that I thought had died such as A4V and the whole CAPITALS thing.

Of course there's nothing stopping me producing a list except bone idleness