Experts say bringing ideological arguments into a legal dispute often backfires — and can make things much harder to resolve.
COVID-19 wasn’t the only phenomenon that took hold in Australia during the pandemic: the US-based ‘Sovereign Citizen’ (SovCit) ideology also gained traction, offering solace to some people during a time of social isolation and heightened mistrust in government.
UNSW law expert, Associate Professor Harry Hobbs, researches the ideology’s impact on our laws and legal system. He says the SovCit-style of disruptive courtroom behaviour and fake legal arguments is a practice called ‘pseudolaw’, and it thrives during times of crisis.
“Most people grab onto pseudolegal arguments because they are trying to maintain control during a family breakup, economic uncertainty, home repossession or something similar, and are just not thinking rationally,” says A/Prof. Hobbs.
In courtrooms, pseudolegal practices dispute the law itself. People who use it reject genuine legal advice, speak in outdated or confusing language, and file numerous claims that make no sense. Some act in threatening ways or bring supporters to court. The behaviour slows down trials, increases costs, and puts pressure on a system that’s trying to treat everyone fairly.
So much effort, for what?
“No pseudolegal argument has ever succeeded in an Australian court,” says A/Prof. Hobbs. “The same is true in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Pseudolaw does not work. It makes things worse for those who try it.”
In one example, a South Australian man challenged a $95 council parking fine. His argument was unsuccessful with the council, as well as in the local court, the appeal, and the final appeal in the Supreme Court. The saga resulted in a conviction, a court fine, a compulsory victims’ levy, and the council’s legal costs being added to the initial parking fine. Total cost: $5085.
“In rare cases, the court has been able to uncover a real legal claim or help someone understand that pseudolaw will not assist their case. This takes time and effort and is very admirable,” says A/Prof. Hobbs. His anthology, Pseudolaw and Sovereign Citizens, helps lawyers and court staff understand and manage the phenomenon.
Former NSW Magistrate David Heilpern once spent three and a half hours considering arguments presented by Robert Sudy, who was in court for traffic offences. Mr Sudy later told researchers that the magistrate’s empathy and knowledge of pseudolegal arguments impressed him.
Mr Sudy now runs the most significant database tracking pseudolaw in Australia and advocates against the practice, says A/Prof. Hobbs. His work serves to protect people not only from financial losses but also from the risk of criminal conviction, involuntary psychiatric care, home repossession, and family estrangement.
The emotional cost of pseudolaw
“For families, it’s incredibly hard. I often hear from people whose loved ones have fallen into pseudolegal beliefs, and it’s clear these views are damaging relationships. It’s heartbreaking,” says A/Prof. Hobbs.
“If the person isn’t violent, the best approach is to listen and try to understand the deeper issue, often a crisis like divorce, money troubles, or losing a home. Strong relationships and genuine listening are the first step toward helping them rethink their views.”
People who adopt the SovCit ideology believe they have two identities: a fictitious “legal person” created by the government, and a “living person” which is their true, free self. They claim that laws only apply to the legal person, and that they can protect the freedoms of the living person by not registering things like guns, cars and newborns.
“Sometimes people aren't ready to hear or aren't ready to talk, but calling them stupid won’t help,” says A/Prof. Hobbs. He says people in crisis are mostly non-violent and different from those who firmly believe in fringe ideologies, and those who make money selling pseudolaw schemes.
When an ideology becomes dangerous
“Sovereign citizen pseudolaw developed in the United States out of a potent mix of racially motivated, extremist political and religious organisations,” says A/Prof. Hobbs. He explains that the ideology is linked to police killings and domestic terrorism, including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the January 6 Capitol riot.
“Professor Christine Sarteschi, an American researcher, has collected data on at least 250 violent cases related to the SovCit ideology, including arson, child abuse, rape, sexual assault, attempted kidnapping, mass shootings, and homicides.”
One example of a grim connection to Australia is the Arizona man awaiting trial in the US for charges of inciting violence online. Sovereign citizen Donald Day Jr allegedly communicated with the Train family in Wieambilla, QLD, in 2022, before six people were tragically killed. The Trains held extreme Christian beliefs and had a history of threatening police.
“This sense of intimidation and violence, combined with the grinding nature of engaging with pseudolaw litigants, has a significant negative impact on court staff,” says A/Prof. Hobbs.
His research in South Australia revealed troubling incidents during the pandemic. In one case, a group of men followed and filmed a junior female staff member after a hearing. In another, a courthouse regular—long seen as eccentric but harmless—was viewed in a far more serious light after a police raid uncovered his cache of unregistered weapons.
The pandemic is over, so... what's next?
“The pseudolaw peak may be passing but cases are still presenting in court. The practice is likely here to stay, and our legal system will need to find new ways to counteract the ways it will evolve in Australia,” says A/Prof. Hobbs.
He says we're seeing more instances where non-Indigenous people are making pseudolegal arguments using terms related to Indigenous sovereignty. At the same time, some Indigenous people are using sovereign citizen pseudolaw to challenge the authority of the state.
“Australian law treats sovereignty claims the same, whether they’re made by an Indigenous community or some guy who reckons he should be a King. Whereas countries like Canada, the United States and New Zealand, which have a treaty or treaties in place, recognise that Indigenous claims are different,” says A/Prof. Hobbs.
“The evolving pseudolegal overlaps are deeply concerning—they risk undermining the dignity of Indigenous law and weakening broader efforts to have Indigenous rights and sovereignty meaningfully recognised in our legal and political systems.”
About us:
UNSW Law & Justice is a top-ranking faculty and a global leader in law and criminology education and research.
Contact details:
Kate Newton
UNSW Law & Justice
News & Content Coordinator
Email: [email protected]