pseudo (n.)

late 14c., “false or spurious thing,” especially “person falsely claiming divine authority,” from Medieval Latin; see pseudo-. In modern use, of things, “imitated and exaggerated;” of persons, “pretentious, insincere,” from 1945; as a noun in the modern sense from 1959. Related: Pseudish.

Pseudo Echo – Funky Town (We gotta move on)

Before we begin to explore the topic of pseudolaw we must first acknowledge that there are two commonwealths as defined by the ‘PUBLIC GOVERNANCE, PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 2012 Section 11.

Types of Commonwealth entities

                   There are 2 types of Commonwealth entities:

                     (a)  a corporate Commonwealth entity , which is a Commonwealth entity that is a body corporate; and

                     (b)  a non-corporate Commonwealth entity , which is a Commonwealth entity that is not a body corporate.

Note:          Corporate Commonwealth entities are legally separate from the Commonwealth, whereas non-corporate Commonwealth entities are part of the Commonwealth.

Why are there two Commonwealths?

There are two commonwealths because the Original Commonwealth ‘The Non-Corporate Commonwealth’ has been usurped by stealth and subterfuge by corrupt politicians serving the constitution of their political parties. The labor party politicians are the wolves in sheeps clothing. See Timeline of Treason.

Timeline of Treason

Many of us are waking up to the crimes that have and are being committed against ‘We the People’ of the Commonwealth of Australia and those that are taking action are being labelled as a ‘Sovereign Citizen (Sov Cit). The phrase Sovereign Citizen is a Gobbledegook label, an oxymoron infact.

Sovereign Citizens Beware

I find it rather amusing to see ‘so-called’ educated people use this phrase to discredit people who are standing up against the injustices that are happening here in our great Commonwealth.

On 1st June 2023 I won a case in the Supreme Court appealing a decision made by Magistrate Dianne Scaddan. I presented at Albany Magistrates court as Dawn-Michelle Executor of the Dawn Michelle Kelly Estate and my Divine Special appearance/presentment was denied and the Magistrate proceeded from S.55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) No appearance by accused and no plea of guilty to S.44. Disclosure/committal hearing, procedure on. This means that the Magistrate unlawfully proceeded to a summary conviction in my absence, yet I was there!!!!

I won my appeal in the Supreme Court, to which Justice Vandongen determined that Magistrate erred in her judgement. A judgement that has been made by, I would say EVERY magistrate in Australia if you do not wish to appear as the ‘Artificial Public Person’. If you do not appear as the ‘Artificial Public Person’, they proceed in your absence.

What I find noteworthy in Justices Vandongens reasoning behind his decision is that he referes to a Paper titled ‘A Kind of Magic’ ‘The Origins and Culture of “pseudo law”’ a speech delivered to the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference 2022 by Judge Glen Cash QC.

Justice Vandongen was presented with an abundance of evidence in the form of an affidavit that we have affirmed our allegiance to the Commonwealth of Australia (Non-Corporate Commonwealth). What is abundantly clear to me is that we are being gas lit on an epic scale.  

KELLY -v- FIANDER [2023] WASC 187

The proceedings in the Magistrates Court

10                  Before describing what occurred in the Magistrates Court it is necessary to say something about the appellant.  It is apparent from the record of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court, the various documents that the appellant has filed in this court, and the proceedings that were conducted before me, that the appellant is an adherent of what has come to be known as ‘pseudolaw’.[5]   It is also clear that she is an enthusiastic proponent of a theory espoused by pseudolaw devotees that some call the ‘strawman duality’.

11                  The strawman duality theory is based on the fundamentally misguided notion that there exists a physical human being and, at the same time, a separate non-physical person (a ‘doppelganger’).  Under this theory, it is said that while governments can exercise power over both the physical and the non-physical person, the capacity to exercise power over the physical person only exists because there is a ‘contract’ that links the physical person with the non-physical person.  This ‘contract’ is evidenced by documents such a birth and marriage certificates.

12                  The non-physical person is often identified by pseudolaw exponents using an upper-case letter name because, it is said, government and legal documentation such as birth and marriage certificates use capital letters when recording names.

13                  A critical component of this strawman theory is the idea that government authority over the physical person can be negated by removing the doppelganger.  In very simple terms, this is said to be achieved by revoking or denying the legitimacy of the contract.  This then has the effect of removing any government authority over the physical person.

14                  One of the appellant’s affidavits, on which she sought to rely in support of her appeal amply demonstrates the appellant’s peculiar beliefs:

Whereas we, whom; being a living breathing woman inclusively, a sentient living soul under heaven; known and called by: ‘©Dawn Michelle’ and whom is also known in contract by the name: ‘©Dawn Michelle KELLY – of the family ©Kelly’, being a private ‘natural living breathing woman of soul’; not an ‘Artificial Public Person’:- a creature of fiction/a creature of statute by way of government registration of the birth certificate, in the name ©Dawn Michelle,  creating the legal fiction from our titled father’s family surname adjoining the given Christian names of my parents for us; Pxxxxx: Michael-John and Pamela-Susan and done without full disclosure of government regulator’s in the forming  of the contract vessel name, a transmitting entity listed in the ‘UCC’ Commercial code for us on registration; adjoined at the time proceeding soon after our live birth record of our father’s surname; the true purpose not disclosed when created. The transfer of one transmitting contract vessel name artificially created, and super imposed, over another artificially transmitting contract vessel name producing ©KELLY. The fraudulent non-disclosure’ of the transmitting contract vessel name now legal name, super imposed by government regulator’s at registration referred to being: the transmitting contract vessel name, all caps, is now null and void; that, of the surname all caps, of our Ex-Husband’s father’s family name adjoining my christian names for us: ‘©Dawn Michelle KELLY’, being the transmitting contract vessel name created in fraud, super imposed and applied to us, in Admiralty Law – Law of Commerce – Law of Merchant, binding us in commercial contract without our autograph/signature nor consent is: null and void henceforth; domiciled at: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Original State of Western Australia, within The Commonwealth of Australia:- a Common Law Land Jurisdiction – its court system having originated in the Common Law System of English law worldwide:

Justice Vandongen 1/6/2023

What is Pseudolaw?

According to “Pseudolaw is based on non existent laws or legal principles but which the advocate or adherent mistakenly believes exist. It is a collection of regulations that appear to be laws but are actually only legal formalities. Pseudolaw generally appeals to persons looking for a solution to their financial or legal issues or against alleged abuses and invasions by the government”.

Are the laws non existent?

In Western Australia all acts and legislation made prior to the Australia Acts are as valid as they have ever been. Which means that ALL Imperial Acts are valid!


76A .         Written laws made before Australia Acts, validity of

        (1)         Each provision of an Act or subsidiary legislation enacted or made, or purporting to have been enacted or made, before the commencement of the Australia Acts —

            (a)         has the same effect as it would have had; and

            (b)         is as valid as it would have been,

                if the Australia Acts had been in operation at the time of its enactment or making, or purported enactment or making.

        (2)         Subsection (1) is not intended to, and is not to be given effect so as to —

            (a)         invalidate any enactment that was valid immediately before the commencement of the Australia Acts; or

            (b)         invalidate any Act because it was assented to by the Sovereign rather than the Governor.

Sovereign Citizens Beware

“The pseudolaw movement is also growing in line with a broader anti-government sentiment. There would be few people who have not seen images of so-called ‘Freedom’ rallies in the last two years. It is common at these rallies to see prominent displays of the Australian Red Ensign, a flag adopted by the SovCit movement. In keeping with the origins of the movement, the flag of the Ustashe, a Croatian ultra-national fascist movement of the early 20th century who were aligned with the Nazis in World War 2, might also have been seen.12 For at least these reasons, it is timely to consider what pseudolaw is, and to at least begin a discussion about how courts might respond to the increase in litigants-in-person espousing these views that may be expected in coming years. In this paper I will set out a brief overview of the history of pseudolaw, a short essay of the beliefs and theories that underpin pseudolaw and consider how the courts might respond to such litigants.

Judge Glen Cash QC ‘A Kind of Magic: The Origins and Culture of “Pseudolaw”’, speech given at the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference, Brisbane (QDC) [2022] Qld J Schol 1

Fake News

Glen Cash goes on to say “The rapid splintering and evolution of pseudolaw in the last 20 years is not unexpected. It has coincided with the explosion of instant communication fostered by the internet. An idea can be transmitted anywhere in the world. It can be replicated countless times on FaceBook and Reddit and Discord and Snapchat and TikTok and so on. As this happens, a type of natural selection occurs. The original idea is added to, changed, or misunderstood…. A new and slightly different idea emerges. Some gain currency and are themselves replicated “

Ritual and Ceremony

“The culture of pseudolaw – a kind of magic? Ritual and ceremony have long been at the heart of pseudolaw ideology. Documents are marked with sigils and signs. 45 Written submissions bear the appearance of incantations. Statutes are parsed to discover hidden meaning and codes. It is unsurprising then that pseudolaw has been likened to magic. Netolitzky has written that the Pseudolaw Memeplex has at its core six concepts: 1. Everything is a contract, 2. Silence means acceptance or agreement, 3. Legal action requires that there be an ‘injured party’, 4. Government authority is defective or at least limited, 5. The ‘Strawman’ duality, and 6. Financial and banking conspiracy theories”

Is contract law a pseudolaw?

Most of these concepts are much the same wherever they are found in the world. The fourth is adapted to suit local conditions and legal history. The fifth concept is in some ways the apotheosis of pseudolegal theory and is perhaps the most encountered in the courts. As may be seen, each concept is based in conspiracy narratives and the belief that pseudolaw adherents know something the rest of society does not. Everything is a contract and silence means consent These two concepts are linked. The first is derived from the idea that no state authority can be imposed on an individual without consent. That is, the ‘social contract’ is not given effect by some collective decision of society at, say, an election, but rather requires individual consent. It follows that it is possible for individuals to achieve immunity from the state by denying the existence of a ‘contract’ or by renouncing the agreement. Under this theory practically any state issued document (birth certificates, driver licence, etc) can be evidence of the contract. OPCA litigants may go to great lengths to disavow or repudiate such documents.48 Returning or surrendering a birth certificate is common.49 This is done because otherwise the silence of the OPCA litigant in the face of government documents may be taken as their consent to the ‘contract’ – the idea that silence equals consent. There is a basis for belief in this second concept, but it is one that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Black’s Law Dictionary is a favourite of the North American SovCit. Dealing with the rules of pleading, an early edition set out the Latin maxim qui non negat fatetur, which roughly translates as ‘Those who do not deny, admit.’ Pseudolaw theory took this maxim and from it developed the notion that it is possible for contracts to be imposed or foisted upon individuals. The premise is flawed. The full passage in Black’s Law Dictionary goes on ‘He who does not deny, admits. A well known rule of pleading.’ It is clear this is not a statement of the law of contract. It is a rule of pleading that exists today”

Fee Schedules and accountability are meaningless according to Glen Cash

“These two elements come together to explain some actions of pseudolaw adherents. One is the so-called ‘fee schedule’. These are documents that might be given to a police officer during a traffic stop and which assert that by talking to the SovCit the police officer enters a contract and is obligated to pay some exorbitant sum of money. Less commonly such documents are given to judicial officers. They are obviously meaningless and may easily be disposed of with the application of conventional principles of contract law. The claim that an individual must consent to the application of state authority is also obviously wrong, but it is more difficult to explain why that is so to a determined OPCA litigant.

A courtroom is not a suitable place for a descent into political theory and ideas of collective consent. Nor is this paper. It is, I think, sufficient to note that it is accepted reality that as a society we collectively admit the authority of the state. A litigant who challenges that reality bears the burden of proving, in a manner decipherable to the court, why their claim should prevail. Absent such proof, the litigant will remain subject to the law. Legal action requires that there be an ‘injured party’ and financial conspiracies”

“The ‘no injured party’ theory is one that derives from William Potter Gale’s version of godgiven common law. It is god’s rule that one should not harm another or their property. This ‘rule’ has been transmuted into a requirement for proof of harm to a person or property before the law can intervene. It follows (conveniently) that so-called victimless crimes – such as producing cannabis or driving without a licence – cannot be prosecuted. The theory may be seen as an extension of libertarianism. Whatever its merits as a political theory, it does not represent the law of Queensland or Australia, where parliament legislates to denote certain conduct as criminal or otherwise, and the executive and the courts enforce this legislation. As far as my research has taken me, I have not found any Australian pseudolaw adherents relying directly upon this idea”.

Magna Carta according to Glen Cash

“Magna Carta is a different creature. Its historical and cultural significance is such that it still bobs up from time to time, usually in purported support of arguments that all litigation must be tried by juries or that it is unlawful to levy taxes. Of course, any invocation of Magna Carta must be met with the question, ‘Which one?’58 The 1215 settlement between King John and his barons that was repudiated within months? The revival of 1216 that was an attempt to garner support for John’s infant heir? The charters of 1217 or 1225? Or the version confirmed by Edward I and which entered English, and subsequently Australian, statute books in 1297? It would be surprising if many of the people who attribute great significance to Magna Carta were aware of its history. It is enough for them to ‘cherry pick’ apparently helpful sections, such as the famous chapter 39 (or 29 depending on the version): No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in any other wise destroyed; nor will We pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”.

Know the Law

It is important to comprehend that the label of ‘Sovereign Citizen’ is a smear campaign to discredit those that are waking up to the treason and making a stand. Firstly ‘The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) imp’ is valid law in Australia and the Courts and Government have been usurped by stealth and subterfuge. This is the problem!

I recommend that you do your own research. Be discerning, stay strong, know who you are, where you stand and where you get your authority from.