Pseudo-Law; Freemen on The Land, OPCAs and magic hats

Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law and purport to be real law. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense.

Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law.

Canadian legal authority Meads v Meads [2012] created the helpful umbrella term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [“OPCA”]. All of the concepts adopted and propagated are legally false and universally rejected by the courts.

OPCA strategies are scams; promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response.

This blog post brings together the leading Canadian authority with more recent examples from Canada following and enhancing it, with additional authorities from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Australia. All of them follow Meads v Meads.

It may be needless to say that these cases always fail, and cause those who seek to adopt the strategies adverse findings and costs.

Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) 🇨🇦

𝘛𝘩𝘦 ‘𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘩𝘢𝘵’ 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵

Click to access 2012abqb571.pdf

Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 🇨🇦

𝘖𝘗𝘊𝘈 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴; 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴. 𝘗𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦.

https://www.albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/qb/judgments/unrau-v-national-dental-examining-board—reasons-for-decision.pdf?sfvrsn=1fe6ba80_2

AVI and MHVB and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix (Third Party and Unauthorised Alleged Representative) 2020 ABQB 489 🇨🇦

𝘈 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘷 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴

Click to access 2020abqb489.pdf

England and Wales 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Salmon v Leeds Crown Court [2021] EWHC 1076 (Admin)

𝘈 𝘵𝘰𝘶𝘳-𝘥𝘦-𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴’ 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘭

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1076.html&query=(Salmon)+AND+(v)+AND+(Leeds)

Northern Ireland

Ulster Bank/National Westminster Bank Plc v Pollock [2021] NICh 23 – NI

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺’𝘴 𝘔𝘤𝘒𝘦𝘯𝘻𝘪𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘥𝘰-𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘭𝘦

Click to access Ulster%20Bank-National%20Westminster%20Bank%20PLC%20v%20Richard%20Pollock%20and%20others.pdf

England and Wales – 2023

R. (on the application of Popovic) v Ealing Magistrates Court [2023] EWHC 1875 (Admin)

*How not to behave in the Magistrates’ Court*

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1875.html&query=(Popovic)

Lewis v West Bromwich Building Society [2023] EWHC 1361 (KB) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

𝘔𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘥𝘰-𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘭𝘦

Click to access 1361.pdf

The Secret Barrister wrote about OPCA litigants during the pandemic here

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2020/11/28/can-magna-carta-and-common-law-give-you-immunity-from-covid-regulations

Australia 🇦🇺

R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216

𝘔𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺.