On this page:

Robert Sudy is a seasoned researcher of pseudo legal theory, having been involved with the movement on social media in Australia for more than a decade. The mythology behind most pseudo legal concepts is extremely peculiar, and understanding the concepts requires journey into the conspiratorial and demon-haunted mystical shadow world of the online community.
Robert’s personal journey into “The Freeman Delusion” begins with himself being firmly convinced of the “commercial argument”, passing on the information to others online for several years, and applying the strategies in driving and several other matters.
After New South Wales Magistrate David Heilpern patiently took the time to comprehensively reject all the arguments contended in his final judgment, Robert’s search for a hint of legal merit in the theories gathered momentum.
Armed with a thorough understanding of the concepts theorised, he took the “devil’s advocate” approach through 9 years of online debates with some of the most prominent leaders in the movement, both in Australia and overseas. He concurrently researched how the individual arguments were rejected previously in the higher courts, and dividing legal fact from pseudo legal fiction, slowly debunked the fundamentals one by one.
The conclusions reached in his journey are compiled in this comprehensive analysis of hundreds of separate and yet connected pseudo legal theories, citing thousands of references, from cases in the federal and higher state courts in Australia and overseas, the associated domestic provisions in legislation, and other reputable legal sources around the world.
While concepts like the “strawman” have been referred to by the courts as “Litigation Poison”, this analysis is ultimately a call to reason for all involved in perpetuating these internet myths, that ultimately can only cause harm and loss to those gullible enough to act upon the information. If people attempt to apply these legally unintelligible OPCA concepts in serious matters before the courts, this damage can unfortunately include incarceration, broken families, severe financial hardship, psychiatric detention, and loss of homes.
When stripped bare of any alleged association or applicability to law, the OPCA doctrine stands naked as the *political movement* it really is. Although it contains anarchist elements, the ideals expressed are purely POLITICAL, not LEGAL, and ultimately, the law courts are not the venue for political change.
“Pseudolaw is a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be superior laws suppressed by conspiratorial actors. Pseudolaw replaces conventional law. Modern pseudolaw emerged around 2000 in right-wing and often racist US Sovereign Citizen communities, but has subsequently spread world-wide to groups with diverse political, racial, economic, and social objectives. Pseudolaw purports to shift authority away from state and institutional actors and to individuals, and is attractive to dissident groups who resist conventional authority. Pseudolaw is politically agnostic since pseudolaw does not change or create the ideologies and objectives of these dissident groups, but instead empowers them. Pseudolaw aggravates interactions between its host populations and conventional government, court, and law enforcement actors. As pseudolaw expanded outside of its Sovereign Citizen incubator, pseudolaw ceased to be sequestered knowledge taught by gurus and held by privileged groups. Pseudolaw has merged into the cultic milieu: a collection of rejected and marginal ideas, resources, and history. A broad range of conspiratorial and outsider communities and individuals mine the cultic milieu. In this context pseudolaw has become a separate legal system available to those who seek a different explanation for law, and the extraordinary privileges and immunities that pseudolaw falsely promises.”
– Donald J. Netolitzky; “A Revolting Itch: Pseudolaw as a Social Adjuvant“
Freeman Delusion: The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia
is the definitive legal resource of Australian pseudolaw for students and lawyers alike, and ultimately anyone interested in how individual pseudo legal arguments have been answered by the Australian courts.
2023 Documents
Australian Pseudolaw Argumentation
On 8 January 2023 I released a free 10-page draft version of a new text, titled Australian Pseudolaw Argumentation, which is a brief overview, as opposed to explaining the nuances of the 100 most commonly used individual pseudolaw motifs. I have characterised and grouped these into a larger indicia or species of pseudo legal thought, consistent with the format of the six core concepts found in the pseudolaw memeplex, as observed by Dr Donald Netolitzky KC.
I have nearly completed the final edition of this now extended text, which in effect, takes into explanatory footnotes all of the referenced material in each of the subject matter articles linked to in the 10-page draft edition, converting it into a now 60-page stand-alone document, complete with around 1000 reference links. Just like the draft edition, embedded hyperlinks are not to webpages, but solely to permanent pdf files in the huge library of case law and academic literature compiled on the website.

The final edition of Australian Pseudolaw Argumentation will be ready for publishing and purchase in late February.
The Strawman Duality
I have nearly completed the final text of a 65-page document focusing solely on the pseudolaw concept of The Strawman Duality, the belief that a “legal person” is somehow distinct from a physical human being, created by the government through birth registration and then linked to the physical person as a kind of parasitic twin or doppelganger, providing the mechanism by which state actors exert their otherwise illegitimate legislated authority over the physical “man”.
This document is complete with plentiful reference links and explanatory footnotes including pdf files compiled on the website. Meet Your Strawman – Capitalised Lettering – Natural Person v Corporation – Lost at Sea – Lose the Name – Penhallow and Cruden v Neale – No respecter of persons – Glossa – Strawman in the Courts
Latest Articles
- Strawmen, Sheriffs and Travellers… Oh my!
- Pseudolaw – Cabbages & Kings
- (Not-so) Law Abiding Citizen
- COVID, conspiracies, and ‘confronting’ threats to MPs
- David Heilpern on Pseudolaw
- Reminiscing the last decade
- Recent ‘just travelling’ contentions in police traffic stops
- Police shooting sparks sov-cit expert to warn of rising ‘cult’ danger
- Robert says being a sovereign citizen is like having a ‘mind virus’. It’s a movement the pseudo-law expert knows well
- Tom Tanuki – Aussie Sovereign Citizens
- ABC News: COVID-19 is accelerating the rise of conspiracy and sovereign citizen movements in Australia
- Sovereign Citizen OPCA Law Skool with Rob Sudy
- Understanding and debunking the pseudo-legal ‘sovereign citizen’ movement
- Post by Australian Citizens Party
- The Poor Can Feed The Birds on Sovereign Citizens
- Focus on Sovereign Citizens
- Sovereign People & The Law, with David Heilpern
- The Echo featuring David Heilpern
- Without fear or favour
- My Own Experience – Travelling Lawfully – My Story
Welcome to the Freeman Delusion
Membership
Please be advised, this encyclopedia is made to be viewed on a desktop, as the nearly 600 individual articles have over 3000 judgements and other important pdf, video and audio files embedded into the page, which are sometimes not visible on a tablet or phone. To gain the complete benefit of these website features, it is strongly recommended to view the content on a desktop or laptop computer.
As this initiative relies on public support to continue this vital work, readers can access all of these comprehensive articles, as well as all updates and further articles as they are published, with a choice of preferred membership length to suit their research needs. Click here for Membership page.
An updated 3000 page eBook is also due to be released, containing the complete content of individual pages on this website in one comprehensive document with many extra search features, as well as the hyperlinks to legal reference and other websites, access to all video and audio files and thousands of full judgments of cases in the higher courts, as well as countless published papers on both constitutional law and the OPCA phenomena. With this very well referenced document, researchers can locate accurate information in relation to most of the individual pseudo legal arguments all in the one place, rather than visiting individual pages on this website.
Index
“Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be the sweet, blissful stupidity of animals, molluscs and the gods. Human stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones.”
– Henry de Montherlant (1896-1972)
Introduction
(1) The Making of a Mind Virus
- A Systematised Delusion
- What is an “OPCA adherent”?
- Psychoanalytic Perspectives
- Vexatious litigation
- Terrorism and Sedition
(2) Australian Pseudolaw Argumentation
LEGAL PERSONALITY
- Australia is NOT a foreign corporation registered with the U.S. S.E.C.
- Meet your Strawman
- The Evil Conspiracy to Capitalise Lettering
- A Corporation can be a Person, but a Person cannot be a Corporation
- I’m not a citizen and I’m not a person!
- Lost at Sea – The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
- It’s illegal to use a legal name- Kate of Gaia
- Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators and Cruden v Neale (US cases)
- The Strawman in the Courts
EVERYTHING IS A CONTRACT
- Everything is a contract
- The Consent of the Governed
- The legal and lawful conundrum
- Interpreting legalese
- The word “Includes”
- I don’t stand under that law!
- Corpus delicti
- Signing “VI Coactus”
- Refusal to Enter a Plea
- Cameras in Court
- The Fraudulent Foisted Contract
- Making Money out of Thin Air
- Loans are Book-entry Credits
- The Uniform Commercial Code
- Maritime Admiralty Law *
- The Clearfield doctrine *
THE COMMON LAW FALLACY
- The Principle of the Supremacy of Parliament
- Parliaments in a Federation are not Supreme
- Magna Carta 1297 and Bill of Rights 1688
- Trial by Jury
- The Principle of Responsible Government
- The Binding Effect of Precedent
- The Doctrine of Judicial Immunity
- A Coram is not a Judge
- The Myth of Jury Nullification
- Trespass Signs *
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
- What ‘Unalienable Rights’? *
- A question from anonymous
- Natural Rights and the Social Contract
- International Treaties
- The International Criminal Court *
- Slavery laws
THE TWO GREAT SWORDS
- Pope Owns your Soul? – Papal Bull Unam Sanctam
- The Laws of God are Superior?
- Section 116 – Religious Freedom
- Act of Settlement 1700
- The Roman Catholic Relief Acts
- The Coronation Oath
- Humbly Relying on the Blessing of Almighty God
- St. Edward’s Crown
- God is no respecter of persons
- Glossa? The Romley Stewart Deception by Justinian
NOT DRIVING JUST TRAVELLING
- The Driving v Travelling conundrum
- Registration: Ownership and Title
- U.S. case law: Licence v Freedom of travel
- Is that speed camera tested?
THE PATH TO INDEPENDENCE
- The Australian Constitutions Act 1850
- The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865
- Australasian Federation Conferences 1890-98
- The Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901
- The Sir Harry Gibbs letter (Treaty of Versailles 1919)
- The Balfour Declaration 1926
- The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942
- The Australia Acts 1986
THE DIVISIBILITY OF THE CROWN
- What is “The Crown”
- The Queen of Australia
- The Great Seal of Australia
- Oaths and Affirmations of Public Office
- Show me the Proclamation Certificate!
- The Queen signed it at the top!
- Governor Generals Letters Patent
- The Royal Powers Act 1953
- The Palace Letters
- You should be hung for Treason
THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION
- Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
- Where’s the Commonwealth of Australia?
- The Red Ensign Flag
- The Preamble to the Constitution
- Section 115 Cash is no good for debts
- Section 92 – Freedom of Travel
- Section 100 – Water rights
- For the ‘Peace, Order and Good Government
- Section 3 – Governor General to be Paid in Pounds
- Until the Parliament Otherwise Provides
- Appeals to the UK Privy Council
- The Australian Tax Office is not a Legal Entity
- Commonwealth Public Official
- My Will Letters for a Grand Jury *
- Referendums *
- The Office of Prime Minister *
- The Civil Conscription Argument – Section 51(xxiiiA)
STATE MATTERS
- The Legislative Powers of States
- The premise of inconsistency: Section 109
- Councils are Unconstitutional!
- The Fee Simple Alienation Argument
- The third tier of government *
- Australia has no State borders
- Police Powers in Victoria
- Application of Chapter III to the States
- The Abolition of the Upper House of Queensland Parliament
- The Office of Governor of Queensland
- The Brigalow Corporation Myth
- Altering State Constitutions *
NATIVE TITLE
- Australian Law as Applied To Aborigines
- The Pacific Islanders Protection Acts
- King’s Seal – Letters Patent 1836
- Governed under the Flora and Fauna Act
- Sovereignty or Native Title?
(3) The Evolution of the OPCA Movement
UNITED STATES
- The U.S. Sovereign Citizen
- The White Supremacist Foundations of Modern OPCA Thought
- Lawyers Swear an Oath to the BAR!
- The Montana Freemen
- Winston Shrout and Jordan Maxwell
- David-Wynn: Miller
- One Peoples Public Trust – Heather Anne Tucci Jarraf
- UN Swissindo
- Russell Jay Gould *
- The United States Response
- Sovereign characters
- The Posse Reemerge Half a Century Later
CANADA
- The Canadian Natural Person
- Dïevergent5 *
- Magna Carta Jacquie Pheonix
- WeRe Bank
- Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571
- Dr. Donald J. Netolitzki KC
AUSTRALIA
- Early OPCA Influence in Australia (Upmart (Malcolm McClure) (Ucadia) Frank O’Collins (Love For Life) Arthur & Fiona Cristian – Peter Nolan)
- The Institute of Taxation Research and Wayne Levick
- Micronations
- The Principality of Hutt River *
- Mark Pytellek (Solutions Empowerment)
- John Wilson
- Wayne Glew
- Response to Wayne Glew’s Videos
- Brian Shaw
- David Walter
- Peter Gargan
- Alan Skyring
- Richard Gunter
- Patrick Cusack
- Leonard Clampett
- Brian Charles Fyffe
- Neil Pichinin *
- Dick Yardley *
- David Fitzgibbon
- John Peter Bauskis
- The Corica’s
- Tadeusz Krysiak
- John Russell (Royal Bank of Australia)
- Independent Sovereign State of Australia
- Mark McMurtrie (Original Sovereign Tribal Federation)
- Santos Bonacci
- Max Igan *
- Malcolm Roberts
- Pieta Morgan
- Sue Maynes
- Ross Bradley
- Koula Rafailidis
- Teresa Van Lieshout
- Maxwell Hugh Wilson
- Harley Robert Williamson
- Raoul Agapis
- Peter Connor
- Frank Vazquez *
- Steven Spiers – United Kingdom of Australia
- Juha Kulevi Kiskonen
- Romley Stewart Stover
- Rohan Lorian Hilder
- James Bowes
- Michael Nibbs
- Rodney Culleton – More Rodney Culleton Cases
- Darryl O’Bryan *
- Danny Maksacheff
- Glenn Bowley
- Deno Budimir *
- Joseph Gavin
- Peter Scott Haughton
- Nick Peters
- Keith Knights
- Christopher Bruce Hardy
- New Westralia *
- Andrew Leslie Morrisby *
- Brent Kite *
- Mike Holt (CIR NOW)
- The Great Australia Party (GAP)
- The UK High Court application by the Great Australia Party
- Mike Palmer (Know your Rights Group)
- Sam Jones (Corporate Australia)
- Larry Hannigan
- Pecker Maroo Pty Ltd
- The Aussie OPCA Sphere
- Common Law Courts
- International Tribunal for Natural Justice
ASSORTED ARTICLES
- George Koromilas
- Ivan Bortic
- Christopher James David Summers
- Dax Coxon
- Gregory John Tudehope
- Glen James Polglaise
- Dezi Freeman
- James Rech
- Dylan Confaloniere
- Gregory Norman Francis
- Cayle Jay Skidmore
- Rohan Brown
- Adam Thurrowgood
- Mick Arnup
- Phoebe Lee Bennett
- Kristin MacDonald
(4) The Pandemic
- The OPCA pandemic *
- They’re all paedophiles!
- Pandemic arguments
- The pandemic cases
- Anti-maskers dubious ‘legal’ arguments debunked
- Daniel Andrews charged with Treason!
- Solihin Millin
- Peter Little *
- Nathan Buckley *
- Winning Victoria Back
- Gerner v Victoria [2020] HCA 48
- Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5
- Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320
- Cotterill v Romanes [2021] VSC 498
- Larter v Hazzard (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1451
- Can v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 1480
- Latai Smith v Sydney Night Patrol & Inquiry Co Pty Ltd trading as Certis Security Australia [2022] FWC 1462
(5) Case Law Archives
- Re the Stepney Election Petition; Isaacson v Durant [1886] 17 QBD 54
- Buck v. Attorney General [1965] Ch 745
- Pickin v British Railways Board (1974) AC 765
- R v. Foreign Secretary ex parte Indian Association of Alberta [1982] 1 QB 892
- Southern Centre Of Theosophy Inc v South Australia [1979] HCA 59
- Pochi v Macphee [1982] HCA 60
- Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55
- Nolan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs[1988] HCA 45
- Plenty v Dillon (1991) HCA 5
- Arnold v State Bank of South Australia [1992] FCA 554
- Fisher v Westpac Banking Corporation [1992] FCA 390
- Estate of Napier v National Australia Bank Ltd [1992] FCA 167
- Re Warner v Elders Rural Finance Limited [1992] FCA 473
- Grey v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1993] FCA 54
- Pavlomanolakos v National Australia Bank [1993] FCA 29
- Shields v Cbfc Limited [1994] FCA 1311
- Sydney City Council v Reid (1994) 34 NSWLR 506 *
- Walker v New South Wales [1994] HCA 64
- Kable v DPP (NSW) [1996] HCA 24
- Joosse v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [1998] HCA 77
- Batten v Police [1998] SASC 6778
- Australian Securities Commission v White, Errol John [1998] FCA 790
- Walsh & Anor v Professional Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] QCA 259
- Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 56
- Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30
- Poonon Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] NSWSC 1121
- Brackstone v Police [1999] SASC 35
- Carnes v Essenberg [1999] QCA 339
- Essenberg v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 297
- Halliday v The Commonwealth of Australia [2000] FCA 950
- Buckingham Gate International Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2000] NSWSC 946
- McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] HCA 27
- Money Tree Management Service Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2000] SASC 286; 45 ATR 262
- Dooney v Henry [2000] HCA 44
- Matchett & Lattimore v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] NSWSC 975; 45 ATR 541
- Miller v Chapman [2001] FCA 105
- Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2001] HCA 26
- Cameron v Peter D Beattie in his capacity as Premier & Ors [2001] QSC 115
- Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 518; [2002] 2 Qd R 444
- Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v The State of New South Wales [2001] HCA 7
- Re Patterson [2001] HCA 51; 207 CLR 391
- National Australia Bank Limited v McFarlane [2002] VSC 116
- Lamont v Bright [2002] HCATrans 229
- Smart v ANZ Banking Group Limited [2002] VSCA 111
- Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67
- Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 72
- Szita v Capital Finance Australia Limited (2004) FCA 477
- Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345
- Burns v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 434
- Dore v State of Queensland and Anor [2004] QDC 364
- National Australia Bank v Walter [2004] VSC 36; 1 BFRA 509
- Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43
- The Queen v Kevin Buzzacott [2004] ACTSC 89
- Conroy v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2005] QSC 206
- Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch)
- Donnellan v Garlick [2006] NSWSC 132
- Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260
- Kobylski v Cole [2006] QDC 308
- Glasgow v Hall [2006] QDC 042
- Wilson v Raddatz [2006] QCA 392
- Freilich v Lambert [2007] QDC 157
- Ibolya Szucs v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1492
- Russell-Taylor v Jackson – Nelson & Anor [2007] SASC 15
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nuera Health Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 1756
- Ulysses and Child Support Registrar [2007] FamCA 1395
- Spajic v Robertson & Ors [2007] NSWSC 553
- Daniels v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] SASC 114
- Rainima v Magistrate Freund [2008] NSWSC 944
- Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana [2008] FCA 374
- Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1985
- Pham v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 1310
- Canaway v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 0120
- Wollongong City Council v Falamaki [2009] FMCA 1204
- Vaughan v HSBC Bank Australia Limited [2009] FCA 1007
- Flynn v National Australia Bank, [2009] WASCA 168
- Lade and Company Pty Ltd v Finlay & Anor; Lade v Franks & Anor [2010] QSC 382
- Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451
- Hoxton Park Residents’ Action Group Inc. v Liverpool City Council [2010] NSWSC 1312
- Althaus v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QCA 312
- Tatana v Commonwealth DPP [2011] VSC 367
- Pennicuik v City of Gosnells [2011] WASC 63
- Hedley v Spivey [2011] WASC 325
- Momcilovic v The Queen & Ors [2011] HCA 34
- Mills-Edward v Russell [2011] WADC 9
- Westpac Banking Corporation v Mason [2011] NSWSC 1241
- RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Astolfi [2011] NSWSC 1526
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sproule [2012] FMCA 1188
- National Australia Bank Limited v Norman [2012] VSC 14
- Shoalhaven City Council v Ellis [2012] NSWLEC 225
- O’Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96
- Cribb v Bell [2012] WASC 346
- Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean [2012] WASC 182
- Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd v Webtyre.net Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 168
- City of Armadale v Chapman [2012] WASC 423
- Hargreaves v Tiggemann [2012] WASCA 92
- National Australia Bank Ltd v Joyce [2012] WASC 224
- Stewart v City of Belmont [2013] WASC 366
- Kosteska v Magistrate Manthey & Anor [2013] QCA 105
- Baker v New South Wales Police [2013] NSWSC 57
- Re Magistrate M M Flynn; Ex Parte McJannete [2013] WASC 372
- R v Stoneman [2013] QCA 209
- Kuipers-Lloyd v Police [2013] SASC 137
- Costa v St. George Bank – A Division Of Westpac Banking Corporation [2013] WASCA 137
- Elston v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] FCA 108
- Moon v Secure Funding Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 86
- Palmer v City of Gosnells [2013] WASCA 446
- Anderson v Kerslake [2013] QDC 262
- R v Anning [2013] QCA 263
- Hockey and Anor and Owners Of Mount Bakewell Resort Strata Plan 18228 [2013] WASAT 64
- Firstmac Fiduciary Services Pty Limited v Gilmour [2013] NSWSC 255
- Puglia v RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2013] WASCA 143
- Fallon v NSW Government Office of State Revenue State Debt Recovery Office [2013] FCA 270
- Atkinson v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1217
- Bertola v Australian and New Zealand Banking Corporation [2014] FCA 609
- Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Lamberton; Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Jonathan [2014] NSWSC 547
- ACM Group Limited v McClymont [2014] FCCA 2581
- Elliott v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 161
- Ngurampaa Ltd v Balonne Shire Council [2014] QSC 146
- Lacey v Earle [2014] ACTSC 397
- Wilmink (Trustee) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] FCA 872
- ACM Group Ltd v Jenner [2014] QMC 7
- Woods v Scipione [2014] NSWSC 1100 *
- Stearman v Taylor [2014] WASC 247
- Jackson v Western Australia Police [2014] WASC 72
- Whiting v Whiting & Anor [2014] QSC 187
- NSW Land and Housing Corporation v George Katanasho & Anor [2014] NSWCATCD 198
- Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Roskott [2014] NSWSC 246
- Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire [2014] WASCA 5
- Christie v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 70
- Living Word Outreach Inc v Deputy Sheriff of Victoria [2014] VSC 454
- Ledger Acquisitions Australia MB Pty Ltd v Kiefer [2014] FCCA 2216
- Finlayson v Indigenous Business Australia [2014] VSCA 95
- RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Schafer [2014] WASC 297
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Aitken [2015] WADC 18
- Best v Police [2015] SASC 190
- Millington v Police [2015] SASC 52
- Montgomery v Child Support Registrar [2015] FCA 891
- Lizack and City Of Kalgoorlie-Boulder [2015] WASAT 20
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Queensland Rail [2015] HCA 11
- Ashwell v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2015] WASC 337
- Hou v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] VSCA 57
- BarrettLennard -v- Bembridge [2015] WASC 353
- Donohue v Victorian Electoral Commission [2015] VSC 98
- St George Bank v Hammer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 953
- Re Glenevan Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 201
- Basham v City of Joondalup [2015] WASC 345
- Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Evans; Evans v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1742
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Bonaccorso (No 1, 2 and 3) [2016] NSWSC 595/766/1018
- Fekete v Child Support Registrar [2016] FamCAFC 14
- Ennis v Credit Union Australia [2016] FCCA 1705
- Adelaide City Council v Lepse [2016] SASC 66
- Coshott v Spencer [2016] NSWDC 43
- Hewitt & Corbett 7 Anor [2016] FCCA 776
- Queensland Police Service v Messer [2016] QDC 214
- Smadu -v- Stone [2016] WASC 80
- Leone & Cino [2016] FamCAFC 224
- Norman v Heers (Trustee) [2016] FCA 821
- Gyorgy v City of Greater Geraldton [2016] WASC 399
- Woods v Australian Taxation Office & Ors [2016] QDC 198
- Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] WASC 198
- Backshall v The City of Greater Geraldton [2016] WASC 347
- McKenzie v New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 661
- Burns v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASC 173
- Bowyer v de Jersey [2017] QSC 340
- Pawlak v Police [2017] SASC 40
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Casley [2017] WASC 161
- Application of Adrian Ashley of the House of Cooper [2017] NSWSC 533
- McDougall v City of Playford [2017] SASC 169
- Sill v City of Wodonga [2017] VSC 671
- Cardinia Shire Council v Kraan [2017] VMC024
- ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Bankseea Pty Ltd [2017] VCC 1852
- Bride v Shire of Katanning [2017] WASCA 59
- St George Bank – a Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Ian Craig Press [2017] NSWSC 1129
- Permanent Custodians Limited v Sanders [2017] VSC 516
- Harkness v Roberts; Kyriazis v County Court of Victoria (No 2) [2017] VSC 646
- The Trustee of the Property of Currey (A Bankrupt) v Currey [2017] FCCA 2692
- Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor [2018] VSC 218
- Castle v United States (No 3) [2018] FCA 2022
- Waddington v State of Victoria [2018] VSC 746
- Lion Finance Pty Ltd v Johnston [2018] FCCA 2745
- Sorrel & Cutten [2018] FamCA 291
- Green and Green [2018] FCWA 42
- Members Equity Bank Pty Ltd v Elefterescu [2018] VSC 223
- Sacco v The Queen [2018] VSCA 353
- Ryan v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWSC 265
- Westpac Banking Corporation v Klaric [2018] QSC 38
- Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2018] VSC 740
- Lamble v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2018] QCAT 201
- Kerinaiua v Andreou [2018] NTSC 87
- Petrie; Trustee of the property of Aitken (Bankrupt) v Aitken & Ors [2019] FCCA 16
- K Sheridan v Colin Biggers & Paisley [2019] NSWSC 528 / 621
- Sprlyan v Wyborn [2019] WASC 227
- Woolnough & Anor v Isaac Regional Council [2019] QSC 54
- Warren Ronald Wichman v Pepper Finance Corporation Limited [2019] NSWCA 195
- Deputy Commissioner Of Taxation v Cutts (No.4) [2019] FCCA 2866
- Rural Bank (A Division Of Bendigo And Adelaide Bank Limited (ACN 068 049 178) v Manolini [2019] WASC 313
- Commonwealth Bank Of Australia v Palermo [2019] WASC 28
- Bank of Queensland Ltd v G.L. and L.A. Collis Pty Ltd [2019] VCC 2062
- Jakaj v Kinnane [2019] ACTSC 71
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Lamont [2019] NSWSC 92
- Westpac Banking Corporation v Webb [2019] VSC 121
- Kozisek v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2019] WASCA 71
- Rossiter v Adelaide City Council [2020] SASC 61
- Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Grahame [2020] VSC 86
- Flowers v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWSC 526
- O’Hagan v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] QDC 288
- Ms Nicole Maree Arnold v Goodstart Early Learning Limited T/A Goodstart Early Learning [2020] FWC 6083
- Bayly v Westpac Banking Corporation [2020] QCA 148 *
- Murray v Pinder [2020] QSC 385
- Maher v The Queen [2021] NSWDC 212
- McFarlane v McFarlane [2021] VSC 197
- Clarke v Scanlon [2021] VSC 19 *
- Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Prichard [2021] QSC 179
- In the matter of Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2021] NSWSC 401
- Reiman v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 242
- Steepe v The Commonwealth of Australia [2021] NSWSC 368
- R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216
- Electoral Commissioner of Australian Electoral Commission v Wharton (No 3) [2021] FCA 742
- Covington & Covington [2021] FamCAFC 52
- Dawkins & Penton [2021] FedCFamC1A 74
- Schafer v Bacon [2022] QDC 60
- Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181
- Andrew Glen Sorensen v Queensland Police Service Respondent [2022] QDC 121
- Dent v Commissioner of Police [2022] QDC 235
- Re Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 438
- Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 103
- George (a Pseudonym) v Director of Child Protection Litigation [2022] QChC 12
(6) More Resources
ANALYSIS OF PSEUDO LEGAL MOVEMENTS
Canada
- Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571
- Dr. Donald J. Netolitzki KC
- The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case
- What has Meads v Meads wrought?
- Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomenon – Memo of Law
- Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283
- Broadening our Understanding of Anti-Authority Movements in Canada
- The Sovereign Ascendant: Financial Collapse, Status Anxiety, and the Rebirth of the Sovereign Citizen Movement
United States
- The sovereign citizen movement: the shifting ideological winds
- Uncommon law: understanding and quantifying the sovereign citizen movement
- Without Prejudice: What Sovereign Citizens Believe
- Conspiracy Theories in the Patriot/Militia Movement
- A Schema of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States
- The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook
- The Lawless Ones: The Resurgence of the Sovereign Citizen Movement
- The Sovereign Citizen Movement: An Empirical Study on the Rise in Activity, Explanations of Growth, and Policy Prescriptions
- Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement
- The Sovereign Citizen Movement: A Comparative Analysis with Similar Foreign Movements and Takeaways for the United States Judicial System
- The Usurping Octopus of Jurisdictional Authority: The Legal Theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement
- Natural law v Positivism
- More references and resources
United Kingdom
Australia
- A kind of magic: the origins and culture of ‘Pseudolaw’
- DIY Sovereignty and the Popular Right in Australia
- Anti-government rage: understanding, identifying and responding to the sovereign citizen movement in Australia
- A new approach to vexatious litigation: Prevention through early intervention by the Registrar
- Alternative Platforms and Alternative Recommendation Systems: A Case of the Australian Sovereign Citizen Movement on Telegram
- The International Blueprint for Anti-Government Extremism and the Rise of the Sovereign Citizen Movements
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PSEUDOLAW
- Sovereign Citizens: A Psychological and Criminological Analysis
- Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence / Freemen, Sovereign Citizens, and the Challenge to Public Order in British Heritage Countries
- The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial
- Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations of Sovereign Citizens: A Case Series and Primer of Odd Political and Legal Beliefs
- Evaluations of Urban Sovereign Citizens Competency to Stand Trial
- Threats, Approach Behavior, and Violent Recidivism Among Offenders Who Harass Canadian Justice Officials
- The Lone Terrorist in the Workplace / The Violent True Believer as a Lone Wolf – Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Terrorism
- The Forensic Phase of Litigious Paranoia
- Unusually persistent complainants
- Vexatious litigants and unusually persistent complainants and petitioners: from querulous paranoia to querulous behaviour
- From Paranoia Querulans to Vexatious Litigants. A short study on madness between psychiatry and the Law
- Conspiracy!: Or, when bad things happen to good Litigants in Person
ORIGINS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
- John Locke: Two Treatises of Government
- Sir William Blackstone Definition of a Law
- Sir William Blackstone on the Absolute Rights of Individuals
- Vattel’s The Law of Nations
- An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution
- Studies in Australian Constitutional Law
- The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
- The Coming Commonwealth, An Australian Handbook of Federal Government
- The Crown as Corporation
- De facto Officers
- Volume 1 of the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988
- An Unruly Child: A history of law in Australia
- Sovereign Citizens, not Subjects
- Precedent Law, Practice & Trends in Australia
- Traditional Rights and Freedoms – Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws
- International Law and Australian Domestic Law
- Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights Norms
- Changing the Rules of Succession to the Throne
- The unrecognised reserve powers
- Keeping the Queen in Queensland – How Effective is the Entrenchment of the Queen and Governor in the Queensland Constitution?
- The De-Colonisation of the Australian States
- Responsible Government and the Divisibility of the Crown
- The Legal Personality of the Commonwealth of Australia
- The Evolution of a Separate Australian Crown
- Giving Substance to Murphy’s Law: The Question of Australian Sovereignty
- Why is Australia’s Constitution binding? The reasons in 1900 and now, and the effect of independence
- A tip for legal researchers – Jade
Note: where an asterisk * appears at the end of an article link in this index, it means the article is yet to be completed and is currently unpublished, although it will become available as soon as the content is completed.
(7) Tags
There are also Tags on each article on the website now, that relate to individual subject matter, to connect articles and make searches for particular topics easier.
- A break in sovereignty (11 posts)
- Aboriginal Sovereignty (12 posts)
- Accepted for Value (7 posts)
- Act of Settlement 1700 (4 posts)
- Assent Issues (25 posts)
- Australia Acts 1986 (8 posts)
- Australian Business Number (ABN) (13 posts)
- Birth Certificate Bonds (6 posts)
- Book-entry Credits (23 posts)
- British Subjects (2 posts)
- Capital Letters (16 posts)
- Catholics (12 posts)
- Chapter III Court (37 posts)
- Commercial Liens (7 posts)
- Common Law Supremacy (61 posts)
- Commonwealth Public Official (5 posts)
- Corporate Government (61 posts)
- Equality before the law (1 post)
- Fee Simple Alienation/Deed of Grant (17 posts)
- Fines (3 posts)
- Fixated Persons (4 posts)
- Freemasons (8 posts)
- Glossa/Dog Latin (12 posts)
- Grand Jury (7 posts)
- Habeas Corpus (2 posts)
- International Treaties (23 posts)
- Legal Personality/ The Strawman (87 posts)
- Legalese (15 posts)
- Legislative Powers (20 posts)
- Local Government (32 posts)
- Magna Carta (34 posts)
- Micronations (11 posts)
- Natural Law (5 posts)
- No Contract (18 posts)
- Oaths of Office (31 posts)
- OPCA in Canada (13 posts)
- OPCA Psychology (7 posts)
- Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (15 posts)
- Parliamentary Supremacy (13 posts)
- Precedent Law (2 posts)
- Promissory Notes (27 posts)
- Queensland Legislative Council (2 posts)
- Refusal to Enter a Plea (7 posts)
- Section 116 (7 posts)
- Section 42 (1 post)
- Section 92 (1 post)
- Securitization (13 posts)
- Sir Harry Gibbs letter (6 posts)
- Speed Cameras (7 posts)
- St. Edward’s Crown (3 posts)
- State Borders (5 posts)
- State Entrenched Provisions (12 posts)
- Syntax Fraud (7 posts)
- The Bible (37 posts)
- The Bill of Rights 1688 (20 posts)
- The Coronation Oath (8 posts)
- The Currency Argument (12 posts)
- The Foisted Contract (27 posts)
- The Great Seal of Australia (20 posts)
- The Queen of Australia (48 posts)
- The Red Ensign (3 posts)
- The Removal of the Crown (33 posts)
- The Social Contract (6 posts)
- The Star Chamber (3 posts)
- The Tax Office is not a Legal Entity (6 posts)
- The Treaty of Versailles 1919 (12 posts)
- Travelling not Driving (8 posts)
- Treason (17 posts)
- Trial by Jury (36 posts)
- UK (12 posts)
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (8 posts)
- Unlicensed (14 posts)
- Unregistered (12 posts)
- US Sovereign Citizen (14 posts)
- Vexatious Litigation (12 posts)
If you cannot find what you are looking for under the Tags and Index,
try a search of the website in the Search Bar at the bottom of this page.
Feedback
David Heilpern (June 2020):
“Rob, thank you so much for contacting me. I am very aware of your work, and have referred people to it regularly. It is a work of art and great scholarship and dedication. You should be very proud of it. Epic! I would be deeply honoured to be referred to in any way in your ebook. Keep up the good work – it is very important. There is, as you rightly say, very little compiled in clear detailed but accurate opposition to the freeman delusion. So many of the promoters take money from vulnerable people. You must study law. You can do it externally, You would be a natural. I have been appointed as a Practice Professor at Southern Cross University, and I would be happy to recommend you. David”
Donald Netolitzky (August 2020)
“Mr. Sudy, just a very brief comment. I noted your post of a few days past where you identified me as your “Canadian brother in arms”. I’m deeply flattered. Keep up the excellent and badly needed work. As you well know there aren’t many of us who are actively involved in responding to the pseudolaw phenomenon, but one thing I have learned is that our “throw weight” is pretty impressive. Our research and providing an opposing and well-grounded perspective makes a difference. So once more, I just want to recognize the excellent work on your part.”
Quatloos (Canada) Robert Sudy: Australian OPCA Mythbuster
“He describes himself as a true believer who eventually saw the light and moved on to the bright side. The book isn’t for the faint-hearted. It’s almost 500 pages and being continually updated. It makes Meads v Meads seem like a brochure.”
Australian Paralegal Foundation
“This E-Book is the most comprehensive guide to the delusion that some people call “Freeman” or “Sovereign” or the countless other names that the Courts have characterized as Pseudo Legal (stuff that sounds like it is legal talk but more accurately described as gibberish) that collectively have been labelled OPCA Litigants. This book will help you understand the myths and break it down in simple English why these groups exist and how they are misleading people into harm.”
Stuart Watson
“G’day Rob, I came across your web presence this week when investigating that Romley Stover character. I am impressed by your clearly correct legal knowledge and analysis, as well as your amazing and credible upbringing. Truly impressive critical thinking, and application of both logic and the rules of our legal system, as well as awesomely dismissive expletives to describe those characters. I’ve not seen such well composed legal argument (well compilation and analysis of legal precedent to be sure) AND hilarious and appropriate use of expletives delivered together in all my legal experience. At this point I should note that I was admitted to the Qld Supreme Court in 2001 and hold a valid principal practicing certificate from Qld Law Society. I am the principal of Townsville firm NQ Legal and a lecturer in environmental law for JCU and aspire to be somewhat of an independent lawyer. I truly salute you Sir for your depth of research, critical and logical thinking in this realm otherwise occupied by OPCAs and lawyers. All the best.”
Chris Baker
“I came across your site today. I am a solicitor and have practiced law in Australia and the UK for the past 25 years. On a sadly too frequent basis I receive messages from people referring me to the utter rot that groups promote on the internet – with their pseudo legal BS. I just wanted to say that I admire the significant amount of work that you put in to challenging the conspiracy theories and utter nonsense spread by these groups. Pulling together what you have is no small feat.”
Geraldine Johns-Putra
“Dear Robert, I am an Australian lawyer, first admitted in Victoria about 23 years ago. I am working more these days in areas that touch on human rights, via my niche law practice in Melbourne. I have come across these OPCA arguments over the years but my work is requiring me to become better acquainted with them. Your diligence, meticulous research and well-reasoned conclusions have made it so easy for me to trawl through the many and varied facets of the entire movement and find appropriate rebuttals to provide the people I meet who are attracted to it. They are in the main well-meaning and peace-loving people but they are being horribly misled. These ideas are giving them false hope and potentially harming them and their families. Thank you for your dedication and public service. Sincerely, Geraldine.”
Jane Glover
“I often recommend this book and post linked excerpts from it, in response to pseudolegal statements i see being spouted to unsuspecting people. Though far from being an expert myself, Rob Sudy’s e-book has given me valuable tools enabling me to identify many such OPCA misconceptions and has provided reliable access to all the relevant proven facts, to refute them and to hopefully help some people to avoid becoming entrapped by useless pseudolaw beliefs. I highly recommend the e-book Freeman Delusion: a fully referenced e-book by Rob Sudy, to any seekers (layperson &/or professional) of logic and facts regarding this Consensus Legal Reality we live in. Much healthier for ones mind and wallet, than becoming emotionally trapped into believing cult-like delusions and illogical false-hopes from some OPCA ‘alternate pseudolaw dimension’. Delusions, with an epic (but very avoidable) legal failure rate, in this current functioning reality.”
Steve Prickle Clancy
“I often pass on and share your information. Share your page and now this website. For what it may be worth your facts have helped my sanity enormously while I am dealing with people that have drunk the cordial. And I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you.“
ODDemocracy AU
“Hi Rob. Your work has been invaluable to me in trying to stop the spread of these dangerous ideas on twitter. Wish you were there so that I could call on you for help sometimes!”
Steven Zyskowski
“Thanks for your fantastic compilation of research!”
Nic Faulkner
“… an extremely well written, documented and factual analysis of the Freeman(sovereign citizen) ‘delusion’. I found Rob Sudy’s work here quite a mastery on all things pseudolegal. Full on read, which may make it difficult for some to even start. However, his indexation of each chapter allows people the time they may need to take it all in. Brilliant, something I had though about writing, but this leaves my research and writing ability a long way off… I suggested at least a PhD or Masters. He is quite humble about it all. Great work…”
Tim Prater
“I’ve had the pleasure of watching Rob’s research over the last 5 years or so. He has done an almighty job on his ebook free to all. Its sad there is a group out there that have targeted his work for years but they never ever beat him in a debate on the legals. Man should get a degree and earn some bucks from his knowledge but he chooses an alternative lifestyle.”
Wayne Soles
“It’s a well researched and presented document I have used it as source a number of times and not found it wanting…”
Asher
“Hey Rob! A few days ago I stumbled upon your Freeman Delusion WordPress.
I’d initially found just one of the sections of your website and was completely convinced that you were an Aus law professor. I can’t tell you how shocked and awe-struck I was when I went to the homepage and discovered how off my assumption was. I’m a second year law student and my understanding of the law is probably at best 1/10th of yours. But even beyond your stellar understanding of the law, I am so amazed and grateful for your dedication and patience. I’m positive you’ve been encouraged by many people to study law formally, and I think I recall seeing on your website that this might not be of interest to you, but there is a lot that you can contribute in this area. I’ve recently seen some law professionals suggesting that someone does a PhD on the freeman movement, and I can’t think of a better candidate than you. I feel a little funky encouraging a path of formal education, because I think far too much capital is placed on it. But at the same time, I really believe that we’re better off when people like you are engaged in the legal profession. Regardless of the direction you choose to go in with all of this knowledge, I just wanted to say thanks for all of your hard work.”
Contact
For general website access enquiries, or in relation to particular subject matter that you require additional assistance to locate in the encyclopedia, you can contact me via email at robertsudy@freemandelusion.com (or fill out the fields below).
Please keep in mind that I do not offer legal advice, I deal strictly in the subject of pseudo legal myths. If you have legitimate legal matters to which you require actual legal advice, please seek an appointment with a competently qualified solicitor. Kindly respect that this contact form is not a free service for non-members seeking information in relation to whatever endless questions they might have. My time is limited, and due to the large volume of emails, I can only spend time writing referenced responses to those with an active website membership.
This includes journalists. From past experience, I have concluded that the Australian media are intentionally misrepresenting and politicising the Australian pseudolaw phenomenon. I want no part in a misinformation campaign and witch hunt. See my Public Notice regarding nomenclature in recent media articles. My several attempts at accurately explaining the nuances of the phenomenon have been totally ignored by the journalists. Please familiarise yourself with the content of this notice before contacting me.
Thank you and best regards,
Robert Sudy
You must be logged in to post a comment.