Pseudolaw

rdf:langString Pseudolaw

rdf:langString Pseudolaw consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be based on accepted law or legal doctrine, but which deviate significantly from most conventional understandings of law and jurisprudence, or which originate from non-existent statutes or legal principles the advocate or adherent incorrectly believes exist. Pseudolaw often purports to base itself on "common law", though it has no relation to contemporary or historical examples of common law. Canadian legal scholar Donald J. Netolitzky defined pseudolaw as "a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law", a definition that distinguishes pseudolaw from arguments that fail to conform to existing laws such as novel arguments or an ignorance of precedent in case law. The features are distinct and conserved. Netolitzky has compared pseudolaw to "a form of legal quackery or snake oil" while lawyer Colin McRoberts has called it "law in a Post-Truth Era". The term Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) was coined in a 2012 Canadian court decision to reference pseudolegal tactics and arguments, and has since been used by lawyers and legal scholars in Commonwealth countries. Pseudolegal arguments are sometimes referred to as "legalistic gibberish". The more extreme examples of pseudolegal tactics have been classified as paper terrorism. Pseudolitigation may also waste considerable judicial time. Litigants who use pseudolaw generally dispense with real legal counsel. They frequently rely on techniques and arguments promoted and sold – sometimes as "kits" – by amateur legal theorists, who are commonly called "gurus". Pseudolegal theories and schemes are disseminated and advertised through websites, isolated documents, short or voluminous texts, seminars, radio broadcasts, instructional DVDs and, above all, YouTube videos. Pseudolaw gurus may occasionally appear in court, though in most cases their followers are left to represent themselves. People offering unorthodox and unlicensed legal services are likely to be charlatans or scammers. Pseudolaw typically appeals to people seeking a remedy for their financial or legal problems, or against perceived government excesses and intrusions. It has been used to challenge certain laws, taxes and sentences, to escape debt or avoid foreclosure, as part of financial schemes, but also to deny the jurisdiction of courts or even the legitimacy of governments. It is a common tactic of tax protesters and conspiracy theorists, as well as some types of vexatious litigants. Pseudolegal tactics may defy rationality and resemble magic rituals more than actual law. The behaviour of litigants who use such methods is sometimes so unorthodox it evokes mental illness. Arguments derived from pseudolaw have never been accepted in court and can be harmful to the people using them.