Donald J Netolitzky; “Humdrum Becomes a Headache: Lawyers Notarizing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Documents”
“Most lawyers are unlikely to encounter Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants in their usual practice but with one exception. OPCA litigants regularly seek out lawyers to act as notaries and witness unorthodox pseudolegal documents. This activity is highly problematic. OPCA mythology distorts the notaries’ role concluding notaries have judicial or suprajudicial authority, and generate documents that purportedly have a binding authority on individuals, governments and courts. Lawyers breach their professional obligations when they witness and authenticate pseudolegal documents. Ultimately that puts both lawyers and their clients at risk by careless exercise of notary functions.”
This problem was highlighted by Rooke ACJ in Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571 (at 643-645) and recently in Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson [2022] ABQB 354 (at 54-68):
It has also become an issue here in Australia, as noted by Peek J in Adelaide City Council v Lepse [2016] SASC 66 (from 64):
I thought I’d try the grouping under the six core concepts of the pseudolaw memeplex that Donald Netolitzky set out in “A Rebellion of Furious Paper: Pseudolaw As a Revolutionary Legal System” and it is coming along nicely. I have grouped the localised arguments into specific categories under the section “Government authority is defective or limited” as:
- (1) Common law supremacy
- (2) Aboriginal sovereignty
- (3) 1919 sovereignty
- (4) The Crown as a body politic
- (5) The development of Australian nationhood
(a) The path to complete independence
(b) The divisible Crown
(c) The Australia Act- (6) Other constitutional misconceptions
- (7) Corporate Government
- (8) Religious beliefs and conspiracies
You must log in to post a comment.