Pseudolaw

Pseudolaw consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be based on accepted law or legal doctrine but have no actual basis in law and are generally rooted in conspiracy theories. Pseudolegal arguments deviate significantly from most conventional understandings of law and jurisprudence and often originate from non-existent statutes or legal principles the advocate or adherent incorrectly believes exist.^[1]

Canadian legal scholar Donald J. Netolitzky defined pseudolaw as "a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law",^[2] 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.^[3][4] He has also compared it to "a form of legal quackery or snake oil".^[5] The term Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) was coined in a 2012 Canadian court decision as an umbrella term for pseudolegal tactics and arguments, and has since been used by lawyers and legal scholars in Commonwealth countries.^[6]

Pseudolaw often purports to be based on "common law", though its interpretation of it has no relation to contemporary or historical examples of common law.^[2] It may be used by people who engage in vexatious or frivolous litigation. The more extreme examples of pseudolegal tactics have been classified as paper terrorism – sheer harassment rather than a genuine attempt to argue one's legal position.^[7][8]

Litigants who use pseudolaw frequently rely on techniques and arguments promoted and sold – sometimes as "kits" – by amateur legal theorists, who are commonly called "gurus" by courts, scholars and media.^[2][7] People offering unorthodox and unlicensed legal services are likely to be charlatans or scammers.^[4][9]

Pseudolaw typically appeals to people seeking a remedy for their financial or legal problems, or against perceived government excesses and intrusions.^[10] It has been used to challenge certain laws, taxes and sentences, in attempts to escape debt or avoid foreclosure, as part of financial schemes, and also to deny the jurisdiction of courts or even the legitimacy of governments. It is a common tactic of tax protesters and conspiracy theorists. Journalists and scholars have described pseudolaw as so unorthodox that it more closely resembles magic ceremony or mental illness than any recognizable form of legitimate legal practice.^[11][3][12] Arguments derived from pseudolaw have never been accepted in court^[2] and can be harmful to the people using them.^[10][13] Pseudolitigation may also waste considerable judicial time.^[10][14]