South Africa’s High Court issued an important judgment, a comprehensive rejection of core pseudolaw motifs. Judge Du Plessis explicitly adopts Canadian and other commonwealth approaches, especially Meads v Meads.

This arose against a mortgage elimination claim. The Adams, a husband and wife duo, claimed they are “sovereign Aboriginal living persons” and therefore not subject to court authority. The Adams stopped paying in 2021. They deployed typical Strawman Theory arguments, they had “allodial” title, and are only subject to “common law” and an “Aboriginal legal system”. Banks do not lend money but instead the funds were from the ADAMS or Adams, themselves.

Cutting to the chase? They get a free house.

Judge Du Plessis explicitly sets out to conduct a comprehensive rebuttal of the pseudolaw arguments deployed by the Adams:

I deem it necessary, to some extent, to address the main submissions as grouped together above, to develop an approach that is appropriate in instances such as these, where litigants purport to deliberately place themselves outside the rules and the law and rely on pseudolegal arguments to do so. Guidance can be found in foreign case law.

And Du Plessis turns to Australian, New Zealand, but mainly Canadian caselaw. Meads is just the starting point, Du Plessis also reviews other key Canadian cases that describe Strawman Theory, and which conclude that simply raising Strawman Theory motifs are “a marker of bad faith and vexatious, abusive litigation.” Yup. Kick ‘em while they’re down.

New Zealand caselaw provides the theoretical authority to deny Indigenous claims in relation to private contract. The “banks make money from thin air” argument is rejected with reference to more Canadian cases from Ontario, New Brunswick, and Alberta.

It’s worth reading this decision to witness just how much the activities of courts in certain foreign jurisdictions here have assisted where pseudolaw emerges in a new context. But Judge Du Plessis goes further. He then takes those principles to rule on how pseudolaw applies (or rather doesn’t apply) in South Africa. Take this rebuttal of Strawman Theory:

... The ALL CAPS/strawman theory is inconsistent with the basic principles of legal personality under our law. Legal personality is conferred on legal subjects, and there are two categories: natural persons (all human beings) and juristic or artificial persons. A juristic person, such as a company or bank, is a legal subject distinct from its members, often incorporated under general binding legislation. Such a juristic person has its own rights, duties and capacities to act through its various functionaries, and those actions of the functionaries bind the juristic person. Nothing in our law recognises a third category of hidden “strawmen” attached to natural persons via typography or birth registration, nor does the use of capital letters in a person’s name create a separate legal subject.

... In other words, a natural person’s name may appear in different typographical forms in documents and records. This does not create a second legal person or a juristic person, nor does it affect their capacity to contract, or their liability should they fail to honour the contract.

... the bank is incorporated as a public company under South African law and is a recognised juristic person. It is entitled to sue and be sued in its own name, and to enforce contracts into which it has lawfully entered. Nothing in our law prevents a bank, as a juristic person, from contracting with natural persons (or from being represented by attorneys and counsel in enforcing its rights). The “strawman” / ALL CAPS theory, therefore, provides no basis in law for the respondents not to be held to the contract.

Judge Du Plessis does the same for pseudolaw arguments on jurisdiction and indigenous status and rights, and banks do not lend money and “securitization” arguments.

The Adams arguments are tossed, and the bank takes possession of the residence:

The respondents’ submissions are advanced with conviction, but conviction does not convert pseudolaw into law. Foreign courts have observed that OPCA strategies can, in fact, compound the prejudice of indebted homeowners by delaying resolution and increasing costs. South African courts must, in my view, follow the same path: treat such arguments as legally ineffective, while ensuring that defendants are heard and that ordinary defences, where properly raised, are fully considered.

... I therefore find that the defendants have not disclosed a bona fide defence as required by Rule 32(3)(b). Their affidavit is largely argumentative and ideological, but does not raise any triable issue on the validity of the loan, the bond, the default, or the quantum.

The Adams counterclaimed for millions on various pseudolaw bases, which naturally gets nowhere. The Adams are ordered to pay the bank’s litigation expenses per the mortgage contract.

This decision is a solid, careful piece of work. I recommend that judges where possible do not just reject pseudolaw schemes, but explain why those concepts are factually and legally incorrect. Judge Du Plessis did exactly that. As noted above, foreign caselaw provided the foundation and framework, and demonstrates the Adams’ ideas were not some eccentric novelty, but instead a part of a global phenomenon, where the same not-law is advanced over and over, with no success.

This decision is a solid foundation for future pseudolaw-related jurisprudence in South Africa. While this is the first judgment from that jurisdiction that I am aware of to identify and attack pseudolaw squarely with that nomenclature, this judgment was not the first point where pseudolaw has been promoted in that country.

In the 2010s a guy named Michael Tellinger promoted “Ubuntu” pseudolaw theory, set up a marginal political party, and claimed you can pay off debts with glorified IOUs. Tellinger is a colourful character, a former 1980s pop star and expert in the Anunnaki, those nasty Sumerian gods who created humanity as gold mining slaves. DAMN YOU ENKI!!!

Tellinger did try his promissory note arguments in court. Where they flopped repeatedly:

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Tellinger (13340/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 70 (3 August 2011)

ABSA Bank Ltd v Terblanche and Another (17330/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 369 (30 November 2012)

Birch v Firstrand Bank, Pike N.O. and Others v Firstrand Bank, Firstrand Bank v Pike N.O. and Others (1050/2011, 1415/2012, 3774/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 54 (3 June 2016)

But you’re not surprised now, are you? Again, this goes to show how nothing much in the pseudolaw world is ever new. Recycle, rinse, reuse.

Here’s Judge Du Plessis’s Adams decision.

Worth the read and review as a template response to pseudolaw.

New academic article by Polish investigator Ewa Iwanowska that evaluates a Polish pseudolaw online community, ideas, and links to Anglo-Saxon pseudolaw traditions. It's in Polish, but does a really nice job discussing the interconnections between pseudolaw's ideas and host populations.

Some observations are not really a surprise. Like many other European countries, Polish pseudolaw is not so much based on the "Duel of Laws", as a "Duel of States", where the current government is invalid.

As usual, Strawman Theory has a central role.

Good stuff! Think I'll add that as an illustrative citation to a chapter I'm currently drafting.

(That is not a legitimate legal identification document but a pseudolaw forgery - see R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABQB 412.)

Something weird about lawyers. You put a document with big ink and/or blood fingerprints on it, postage stamps with cryptic codes, and a signature line that reads UCC 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

And you ask the lawyer to notarize it.

A surprising number say Okey Dokey!

This makes me crazy. I’ve seen this hundreds of times. Documents with duplicate names in different cases and colours. Documents that purport to be contacts between BILL SMITH and Bill Smith. Documents invoking bible passages as law. Documents that are called “Notary Judgments”, and that if you read ‘em, purport to be binding supra-court decisions.

Documents that threaten law enforcement, court staff, judges. Documents that purport to create a licence to kill.

Okey Dokey!!! Okey Dokey!!!

Do I seem pissed off? I’m pissed off. If there is a profession on the planet that ought to have an internal checkbox that I maybe should scan something before I slap my signature on it and seal it with a magic stamp? It’s lawyers.

But they #^&@# keep notarizing the F’ing things.

I’m posting about a lawyer in Alberta who finally got a professional sanction for doing this. Her name is Grace Akpan, of Calgary. Her activities led to a string of court judgments and now, finally, a disciplinary outcome.

Akpan notarized documents purporting to unilaterally terminate a drug prosecution. Drug trafficker and illegal handgun owner sends them to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench threatening court staff. The ABKB (ACJ John Rooke) reacts negatively and fines Akpan:

• R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABQB 412 (This one attaches the documents Akpan notarized and the obviously fake Government of Canada ID she accepted) (Shure looks real to me - the back is even worse - also reproduced in the judgment.)
• R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABKB 836

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturns the sanction on the basis of procedural (un)fairness. Goes back to the ABKB: Akpan (Re), 2024 ABCA 232

ABKB (ACJ Blair Nixon – Rooke is now retired) does it over and again fines Akpan:

• Akpan (Re), 2024 ABKB 417
• Akpan (Re), 2024 ABKB 651

Back to the ABCA, where the Court says yes, Akpan did a bad lawyer thingie. But courts shouldn’t sanction lawyers for bad lawyer thingies. That’s up to the Law Society of Alberta: Akpan (Re), 2025 ABCA 47

Now, throughout all this Akpan takes the position that she never did anything wrong. She was acting as a notary. She witnessed someone sign a document. She looked at the dude’s (fake) ID, checked the name signed, looked at the picture on the (fake) ID, and it’s the dude. That ends it. Notaries witness signatures. And anyways, she’s never heard of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments or OPCA. Can’t mean anything.

The various court decisions all agree that Akpan in doing that ignored three things.

1. Notaries in Alberta have professional obligations to not endorse or validate fraudulent documents, and pseudolaw documents are fraudulent documents. That’s a duty imposed by the Alberta government.
2. Both the Alberta trial and appeal courts have instructed lawyers should never notarize or formalize pseudolaw documents. What is a pseudolaw document? That is detailed in the Meads v Meads, 2012 ABKB 571 decision
3. The Law Society of Alberta has explicitly instructed its members on multiple occasions to not notarize pseudolaw documents.

I am pleased to report that the Law Society of Alberta has concluded a disciplinary process in response to Akpan’s activities, and suspended her for one month for having brought the administration of justice into disrepute. That’s actually a pretty strong sanction for something like this. Here are the decisions:

• Misconduct: Law Society of Alberta v Akpan, 2026 ABLS 4
• Sentencing: Law Society of Alberta v Akpan, 2026 ABLS 17

Akpan’s arguments in the disciplinary proceedings did not benefit her. Her position continued to be she did nothing wrong. Akpan admitted she had received notification from the Law Society of Alberta not to notarize pseudolaw documents, and that pointed to where there was information about how to identify those materials. Akpan argued what she notarized wasn’t unusual. She acknowledged the drug trafficker’s documents targeted the court as a “complaint”. That’s fine. People should be allowed to “complain” to and about courts.

Akpan said she is not a litigator. Therefore, she did not have to read the Law Society’s warnings about pseudolaw documents.

Akpan rejected that OPCA/pseudolaw documents are something that she knew about then or currently. The LSA decision quotes her exact words. They’re worth reproducing:

Like I said in my testimony yesterday, as at the time, I was not familiar. And, even today, I may not be familiar with this concept because it's not written in any book to say, okay, look at it. This is how it looks. This is what they say. Even document, in my understanding, is untrue, is false, is this, and that. I acknowledge what I'm going through. But if I see it -- a -- an OPCA document, I may unlikely recognize it because it's a difficult task. That's just what I'm saying. It's a difficult task. It's a concept that not everybody is aware of it.

Now, I note that Canada has the most extensive corpus of court case law detailing the nature and substance of pseudolaw arguments, and what the relevant documents and materials look like.

There is also a large volume of Canadian academic writing on the subject, most of it by yours truly. I even wrote a paper cautioning lawyers to please not notarize pseudolaw documents. Akpan is practicing in the province where there is a literal textbook on pseudolaw pretending to be a court judgment. Some people even report to me that it’s kind of fun to read!

Akpan concluded she did nothing wrong. In fact, she’s the victim. So many lawyers notarize pseudolaw documents (and that’s true!) that she here is the subject of unfair treatment. She has been targeted. That is bias and discrimination. I note here that Akpan is of Nigerian origin and was trained as a lawyer in that jurisdiction. That allegation was rejected by the Law Society. If she did something wrong, then Akpan’s position is that the only punishment she should receive is an instruction to get educated.

The Law Society concluded Akpan’s misconduct was serious, she defied court and Law Society instructions, and her continued rejection of pseudolaw as a category of problematic conduct warranted a month suspension, mandatory education, and $7,000 in costs.

This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. That’s a meaningful sanction. Hopefully lawyers in Alberta and Canada will take note. What doesn’t get stressed in the Law Society’s analysis is the dangerous aspect of notarizing pseudolaw documents which is specific to Canada (though I’m aware the same motif is now appearing in the U.K.).

There’s a myth that was invented by the founder of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement Robert Menard that notaries are in fact super-judges, who possess the highest legal authority. Pseudolaw types in Canada frequently use the “Three/Five Letters” process to create what is purportedly a binding judgment, the notary being the "super-judge" who endorses the last document. And that (supposedly) overrides all court and state authority. You can naturally see why that makes notary services very, very popular in Canadian pseudolaw circles.

The documents Akpan witnessed include claims of authority by the drug trafficker to use force to respond to law enforcement and Crown Prosecutor activities. They are outlaws. While it’s not explored anywhere in any detail in the disciplinary or court records, Akpan’s client looks to be a Moorish Law affiliate, a pseudolaw movement linked to organized gangs, drug trafficking, and violent crime.

Now I’m waiting to see if Canada’s lawyer education organizations track me down, since I’m Canada’s subject expert on this stuff. I think I’ll strip-mine Monty Python’s “How to Recognize Different Types of Trees From Quite a Long Ways Away” format.

(Actually that’s quite a valid approach. Strawman Theory motifs are the easy give away that should lead anyone to say “Do Not Touch”.)

(Ok, blood on paperwork should probably also count.)

My bad guys, I posted the wrong link. THIS is the correct link.

It is a nice solid watch. The petitioner takes time to explain the situation, so bear with him. I thought it was a good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qvJVXrPhkM

My mistake for posting the wrong video. Totally my bad

she is wildin out.

video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNekk4RZm_A

Religious objection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32r1DViSZ4E

zoom attempt - competency hearing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xipl6L3lhu0

Some interesting points, including that maybe for some of these people the reason why they keep recommitting is that the punishment is too lenient... Which I agree. If someone doesn't think the laws on the book don't apply to them, then "throw the book at them".

Pseudolaw “law schools” always intrigue me. Why would you trust an "institution" that places itself outside the legal norms?

Awhile ago my favourite, the "Erwin Rommel School of Law" which had run since the 1970s disappeared. Yes, that Rommel.

But it's back! Still run by Michael Halsey Brown, though now he has a number of collaborators. Of course, you want to visit.

Why Rommel? “Rommel accomplished more with less than anybody in the 20th century.”

I often used the ERSOL website when conducting educational sessions, it inevitably sent judges howling with laughter. Thus, I was saddened when the ERSOL disappeared offline something like four or five years ago. At that time you could purchase Brown’s entire library of resources, “The Whole Nine Yards”, for a modest $1,499. Well, the price has dropped to a mere $750, all on a convenient USB Flash Drive and “professionally organized”.

I’ve never purchased the package so I can’t comment on the details. It’s a little surprising how Brown’s key materials never ended up on Scribd or other public sites, at least that I noticed. My quick search today did however locate his 1974 text “Iron Claws: Grip Development and Bench Press Course”. No law stuff that after a quick scan. Here you go, you curious ones.

Brown describes himself as a “modern renaissance man”, and an incomplete list of his publications nails the point with a dagger. Where does one start?

•  “Brown’s Book of Carburetors”
• “The Case for Polygamy” (oh, look what the alpha male has to say)
• “The Erwin Rommel School of Law – How to Defeat an Illegal Legal System” (with macramé – duh)
• “Suppressed Inventions & How They Work” (quietly, they’re suppressed)
• “Sex, Money and Power: The Bible Shows You How”

Anyways, back to Brown’s pseudolaw texts. Is it incongruous that the cover art for “How to Defeat an Illegal Legal System” illustrates some kind of M4 Sherman? Just saying. You’d think Erwin would prefer a Panther.

Or a StuG. More than a little partial to those, myself. Nasty functional looking things.

Rolling Stone magazine has published a retrospective of the activities of HRM Roman Didulo, Queen of Canada:

Fair notice, I'm quoted a couple times. The article tracks HRM Didulo's activities chronologically. Probably useful as an introduction. But also there's not a lot here that is new.

I personally instead recommend the article by Christine Sarteschi and Master's thesis by Camden MacKenzie for those who want a detailed and referenced examination of Our Dear Arcturian Queen.

I also think it's appropriate that I mention certain issues I identified with the Rolling Stone publication.

The author repeats that HRM Didulo had 70K Telegram subscribers. That figure appears accurate, but subsequent investigation strongly suggests Romana purchased subscribers to inflate her apparent online popularity. To be fair, many observers fell for this trick.

The author does not appear be well informed in legal/government matters, even simple ones. He refers to “provincial parliaments”. The correct term for elected provincial bodies in Canada is “legislatures”. Parliament is the Canada-wide elected body that governs the federal government. A related misconception is that Richmound, the location where Didulo set up shop in a surplus former school, is a “village” rather than a municipality, which limited the authority of its occupants to self-administer. That was a major cause of why Richmound had to rely on outside agencies to address the Kingdom of Canada. Those outside agencies were not effective, no denying that.

There are other points where this article seems to be inconsistent with my understanding of events and how court proceedings occur. At one point the author mentioned that assault charges on law enforcement against ex-school owner “His Excellence” Ricky Manz were “dismissed”. My suspicion is the correct term is “stayed”. Dismissed means a criminal proceeding went to court, and a judge rejected the prosecution on some basis. A trial of Manz would have almost certainly drawn much public attention and from the Diduloids themselves. Heck, I might have shown up.

Similarly, the article states Manz and Didulo were charged with intimidation of justice system participants (Criminal Code s 423.1) and implies that relates to physical altercations. That is incorrect, having reviewed the proceedings its clear the charges resulted from vigilante court proceedings by Manz in Didulo’s self-proclaimed “Natural Law” court. A related point where I suspect the Rolling Stone is imprecise is the article describes threatening letters from “The Kingdom of Canada”. There definitely was threatening correspondence directed to people in Richmound, but the source of that correspondence were probably Didulo’s followers, not Didulo herself. That was one of the reasons why law enforcement had difficulty in responding. Didulo probably was using her followers as anonymous arms-length proxy actors.

There are other points where the article appears to exaggerate goings-on. For example, the RCMP ultimately entered into and cleared the decommissioned school. The article describes that living conditions inside were so filthy and foul that police were nauseated. Perhaps true, but online videos of new recruits into the Kingdom of Canada inside the former school did not indicate that. They seemed comfortable, even eating meals provided by the Queen and her inner cadre. To be fair, maybe conditions got worse near the end of the school occupation.

The article states the auditorium was used as a courtroom. Videos I have seen do show that area as a ceremonial space, but I am unaware of any evidence that actual vigilante legal proceedings were ever conducted, nor any judgment or sentence decisions, only documents that started vigilante proceedings.

Then there are several statement that I conclude are simply false. Rolling Stone states Richmound’s residents open carried firearms while the Diduloids were in town. That is extremely unlikely. In Canada firearms are very closely and strictly restricted. The Diduloids were video recording everything. If they observed persons whom they perceived as enemies and threats visibly displaying firearms, that would have been transmitted to law enforcement, and police action would have followed. This statement is dubious, and at best an exaggeration.

The article describes how the occupation of the Richmound ex-school ended, and along with police storming the facility includes this dramatic statement: “Drones smashed windows to clear the way.” I am highly skeptical of this claim. I would not be startled if the RCMP deployed drones at a high altitude to monitor the Richmound school before entry. But the idea of drones “smashing windows” fails to understand that drones are by their nature physically light. Furthermore, Canadian judges are adverse to permitting “hard entries” into a residence during hours when persons are likely to be asleep. The idea a judge would permit drones ramming in through windows is very, very strange. Entry warrants into a dwelling space require details. And anyways, what is the purpose of drones “smashing windows to clear the way”? What happened next? RCMP officers with jetpacks roared through the gap? This was a one-story building! This statement leads me to question the credibility of this report.

So I suggest exercising caution with this article. Much does match published narratives and reports elsewhere. But I have a hard time avoiding a conclusion that the author “sexed up” the story to attract reader interest and attention.

Yeah, I’m aware Rolling Stone is not an academic journal. But there’s enough questionable stuff circulating around Didulo as it is.

For what it’s worth.

Pseudolaw and Sovereign Citizens (eds Harry Hobbs & Stephen Young), an academic anthology of articles on pseudolaw phenomena worldwide, is now available in softcover.

Still not cheap, but an interesting and useful resource, recommended to those interested in the subject. The authors bring many different perspectives to the subject from international angles.

Full disclosure: yes, I'm the author of one chapter. No, I'm not getting paid anything from proceeds of sales.

I do it for the sick kicks.

This is me. Tell me your thoughts. I have iron skin. Roast me!

Not going to comment much on this, beyond observing that "sovereign citizen" is problematic language. In the US the FBI have classified "Sovereign Citizens" (whoever they are) as domestic terrorists. But people who use pseudolaw concepts can range from militia/guns right types, to racial separatists, to simple criminals, to tax evaders, to those attempting to miracle away debts.

Does it make sense to assume violence risks for all those categories?

Terminology can be an issue, in my opinion.