'New Hosts for an Old Disease: History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada - Part III' in (2023) 60(4) Alberta Law Review 971-1015 comments
United States-sourced false law concepts, “pseudolaw,” were the schematic backbone for a number of Canadian anti-authority and criminal populations that operated in 2000–2015. These “first wave” pseudolaw groups and their descendants are now dead or inactive. A “second wave” of novel pseudolaw groups has since emerged, energized and catalyzed by economic stress and the COVID-19 pandemic. This article reviews Canadian second wave pseudolaw and its host populations, documents second-wave pseudolaw theories and activities, and examines their comparatively limited success. Finally, the potential of violence building off pseudolaw in Canada is investigated.
Netolitzky argues
The previous articles in this series, Netolitzky, “History #1” and Netolitzky, “History #2,” reviewed the post-2000 nature and characteristics of pseudolaw, and the overall patterns of pseudolaw activity in Canada. Netolitzky, “History #2” specifically investigated whether social scientists are correct that pseudolaw expands during periods of social stress and crisis, including the 2018–2019 economic downturn, and 2020-present COVID-19 pandemic.
Netolitzky, “History #2,” concluded the two dominant 2000–2010 Canadian pseudolaw movements, the “Detaxers” and “Freemen-on-the-Land,” continued their decline post-2015. The Detaxers are now dead. The Freemen-adherent population retains its political and criminal orientation, but has not re-engaged pseudolaw toward those objectives. Neither pseudolaw movement exhibited the predicted crisis-based amplification and expansion. A second wave of Canadian pseudolaw gurus and movements, which have little to no “parent to child” connection to earlier Canadian pseudolaw antecedents, has emerged post-2015. These second wave Canadian pseudolaw movements continue to apply the six core components of pseudolaw inherited from the United States Sovereign Citizen movement. As such, second wave Canadian pseudolaw continues the pattern that pseudolaw’s various forms, worldwide, are new branches off an established trunk, or side tunnels off the same conspiratorial rabbit hole.
What separates these new pseudolaw instances are characteristics distinct from earlier Canadian pseudolaw:
1. different pseudolaw theories and strategies in addition to the core six-part Sovereign Citizen pseudolaw components;
2. host populations with different and more diverse characteristics than pre-2010 Canadian pseudolaw adherents;
3. influence by non-Canadian sources; and
4. pseudolaw directed to different social stressors.
Another novel characteristic of some new Canadian pseudolaw gurus and groups is that, although certain of these instances of Canadian pseudolaw developed a substantial following, that has not translated into court proceedings and judgments. As will become apparent, that pattern is not because these new expressions of pseudolaw do not reject conventional Canadian law. They do. However, the forum for that competition of laws is not litigation oriented. For many of these pseudolaw movements, Canadian courts are simply irrelevant. These groups do not litigate to conduct their dispute of laws. They expect to achieve their objectives in other ways. This distinguishing characteristic means, different from Detaxers and Freemen-on-the-Land, much less case law documents post-2015 second wave pseudolaw systems.
Pseudolaw is always a risk factor, since, at its foundation, pseudolaw promises to transfer authority away from state actors and to its users. Unsurprisingly, the now (falsely) empowered dissident and marginal populations that use pseudolaw predictably become increasingly aggressive, engaging in abusive and harassing document-based schemes and litigation, commonly called “paper terrorism.” However, paper terrorism is not the full extent of the aggressive actions taken by some pseudolaw actors. Violence, too, is well-documented, particularly directed to law enforcement and court agents.
Canadian second wave pseudolaw has introduced an unusual, novel, and disturbing form of violence and aggression. Multiple new pseudolaw movements are engaged in vigilante activity, purporting to be valid authorities who discipline “outlaws,” with imaginary court summons and proceedings, and false and spurious “peace officers,” and “citizens’ arrests.” This alarming escalation in illegal activity reappears repeatedly as a threat factor within modern Canadian pseudolaw communities.
