People of the Commonwealth of Australia be warned, we are being strategically gaslit by magistrates and judges who cite fictional opinions of a Canadian microbiologist masquerading as a lawyer!

The blanket use of the label ‘Sovereign Citizen’ by Magistrates, Judges, Police, media and by the general public is a strategy used to target individuals as domestic terrorists and supress common law. COVID opened the flood gates to a communist totalitarian police state.

Sovereign Citizen is an oxymoron!

The 1901 federal land flag has been described in court by police as a ‘Sovereign Citizen Banner’.

For those who wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court be aware that the courts strategy has been outlined in ‘A Kind of Magic: The Origins and Culture of ‘Pseudolaw’ Glen Cash* Paper delivered to the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference 2022 26 May 2022’

Glenn Cash States that “the Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles”. 

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 UK preamble, the founding document of our nation humbly relies upon the blessing of Almighty God.

The Authorised King James Version 1611 Bible is a royal accented law book used in all courts to swear an oath to God. Don’t you think it’s odd that Christians would be labelled as right winged Sovereign Citizens?


Pseudolaw is a system of not-law rules that has become broadly disseminated, worldwide. Pseudolaw promises its users extraordinary empowerment, via a secret law that is concealed from the public. This article introduces pseudolaw, its known characteristics, and discusses the relationship between pseudolaw and religion. The social character and organization of pseudolaw populations and individual users is only poorly understood. This article introduces six studies on that subject, collected in this special issue of the International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation. Keywords: Pseudolaw, Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, OPCA, Sovereign Citizen, Freemen-on-the-Land

The Perfect Weed for this Spoiling Soil: The Ideology, Orientation, Organization, Cohesion, Social Control, and Deleterious Effects of Pseudolaw Social Constructs

Who is the Man that Glenn Cash so heavily relies upon in his Queensland Magistrates Court Speech ‘A Kind of Magic?’ According to Donald Netolitzky states that he is a microbiologist masquerading as a lawyer. He is not interested in law, legal theory etc, he measures court processes and activities. He states that he investigates anti-authority false-law pseudolaw phenomena…. and ‘cultic milieu’ WHAT A JOKE!

Pseudo– is a prefix that means pretended and not real.

As you can see in Glenn Cash’s conclusion, he quotes Netolitzky the microbiologist who uses words like ‘potential hosts’, ‘disease of ideas’ and ‘hybridization’ 

Why would the Australian Judiciary, the purported law experts rely so heavily upon the opinion of a pseudo-lawyer in the area of pseudo-law?

The answer is – They are concerned, and so they should be.

For people like myself who are currently embroiled in the Western Australian legal system, I experience gaslighting every time I go into court. The usurping of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 (UK), the absurd fictional Queen of Australia charade, the corporatisation of government, no separation of powers between, judiciary, parliament and the police force.

The wins that I have had in the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court of Western Australia have shown me that the principles of law (rule of law) MUST be upheld. It is a slow and arduous process but a win in court when challenging the status quo is how we change the way law is interpreted. Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187 is a jurisprudence case, it has changed how the judiciary proceed with everyone who enters the court and ‘appears’ before the court.

s.76A 1(a)(b) Interpretation Act 1984 Written laws made before Australia Acts, validity of:

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

(b)is as valid as it would have been

Pseudo-law gaslighting used by Magistrates and Judges are but an attempt to retain their position of power in the highjacking of the courts by corporate government and stakeholders.

ALRC 17 – A common law principle

It is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law that no one is above the law. This principle applies to the government, its officers and instrumentalities: their conduct should be ruled by the law. AV Dicey wrote that the rule of law encompasses:

equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary Law Courts; the ‘rule of law’ in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.[1]


Elements of the rule of law

The importance of the Rule of Law in Australian society is shown through the following examples: 1. our political system, which divides power and responsibilities (known as the ‘separation of powers’) between the legislature (parliament), the executive (government ministers who run departments) and the judiciary (the courts); 2. our ability to freely criticise and protest against our laws and the organisations who make them; 3. that all people are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise and are entitled to remain silent and not incriminate themselves; 4. that any person can be charged with an offence, regardless of their political or social connections; and 5. Trials are conducted with ‘fairness’ to all involved and that any person can enter a court and watch legal proceedings.

  • Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public trial—this is known as the ‘presumption of innocence’.
  • People can only be punished if a court has decided they have broken the law.
  • A person can only be found guilty of committing a crime if their actions were illegal at the time. Retrospective laws – laws that change what was legal or illegal in the past – should not be created.
  • The government can be challenged about its actions through the courts and by the media and citizens.

No one is above the law including Magistrates and Judges

Magistrates Court Act (WA) s.37

Dealing with the OPCA litigant

An OPCA litigant is defined as an ‘Organised Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument’ Litigant. In my opinion is a derogatory label used to classify those who challenge the jurisdiction of the law merchant courts.

‘Page 15 A Kind Of Magic’: Of course, the process of dealing with a proponent of pseudolaw may sometimes be challenging. The same can be said of all litigants in person. Two concerns are raised. First, how to respond to the litigant in court, and secondly, how might the courts as an institution respond. Responding to the OPCA litigant in court Dealing with an OPCA litigant in court must begin with an attempt to understand what has driven them to the position they are in. What is their motivation for embracing pseudolaw? Often the answer is the same. They are persons who feel they are disenfranchised or marginalised. They are in a position of relative disadvantage in society and pseudolaw presents an opportunity to take control. Pseudolaw is the ‘inside knowledge’ that permits the OPCA litigant to command a power kept secret from others. Such can drive some litigants into a fervent, if not febrile, pursuit of what they perceive as ‘justice’.

“Dr Lester has developed some guidelines for dealing with querulous or vexatious litigants that apply equally to OPCA litigants. Paraphrased, they are:

1. ‘First do no harm.’ By adopting this aphorism Dr Lester means you must realise that you are unlikely to be able to satisfy the litigant or persuade them they are wrong. Instead, the aim should be containment and to avoid making the litigation more difficult.

2. Be prepared for the ‘six Vs’. This refers to the tendency of such litigants to be volatile, to feel victimised, to seek vindication, to produce voluminous and vague written and oral submissions and to vary their demands.

3. Maintain formality and boundaries. Adherence to rules and procedures will assist in the aim of containment. Ensuring formality may assist in emphasising the authority of the court and its role in impartially deciding the contest between the parties.

4. Recognise that the litigants may appear hyper-competent, with masses of cases and documents, but they are in truth overwhelmed by the court process. Remember, as well, the obligation of judicial officers to ensure fairness where one party at least is not represented.

5. Maintain focus. The OPCA litigant may have the tendency to be discursive. It will help to intervene when this occurs to keep the discussion on track. The same applies to judicial officers as well who should avoid jumping around from topic to topic.

6. Control through limits. Set boundaries and limits at the start of the hearing. Let the litigant know the order in which you will hear from the parties and the topics that need to be addressed. Where appropriate, set time limits.

7. Silence is golden. Sometimes it is best to let the litigant say what they want without interruption, at least within sensible limits. Interventions from the bench may only add delay and confusion.

8. Keep a thick skin and do not personalise the encounter. Some litigants will be disrespectful or outright rude. For conduct that falls short of actual contempt in the face of the court, it is best to ignore the rhetoric and attempt to get to the real issue before the court.

Glenn Cash added, ‘To these guidelines I would add my own.

  • Be patient and polite to the extent that is possible.
  • Avoid arguing with the OPCA litigant.
  • Do not be smug, arrogant, or dismissive. An intemperate or impatient response will make the situation more volatile and is not in keeping with the judicial oath to ‘do right by all manner of people’.
  • Finally, wherever possible, prepare! This is not always possible. But when it is, time should be spent examining the material filed by the OPCA litigant to identify what beliefs they may be espousing. This will greatly assist in identifying an appropriate response to the claims that are advanced.’

Institutional response

‘The issue of what might be the institutional response of the courts is a broad and difficult one. If some response is to be developed it will be for the courts to decide having received appropriate input from judicial officers and others. On the civil side that response might include a greater role for the registry and the rules of court to assist in ‘gatekeeping’ at an early stage.

For example, documents that do not conform to the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) might not be accepted for filing. In this way some unmeritorious claims may be identified and perhaps abandoned by the litigant. On the criminal side there is less that might be done. A defendant in a criminal proceeding is not in court by their own choice, and the imbalance of power between the state and individual means caution must be exercised before summarily dismissing the complaints of a defendant. I repeat that preparation and research may provide at least part of the answer for the courts when dealing with OPCA litigants. There is a very substantial body of academic literature available for review, some of which is listed in a bibliography to this paper.’

Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3U.S. 54 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54): SUPREME-COURT-RULING–NO-CORPORATE-JURISTDICTION-OVER-THE-NATURAL-MAN

Supreme Court of the United States 1795, “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54);


‘Every Man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellow Men without his consent’: Cruden v Neale ZNC 338 May Term 1796.’