Article by Australian Prof. Joe McIntyre concerning the effects of pseudolaw on Australian courts and legal processes.
McIntyre has conducted some of the very limited research that evaluates the "court side" effect of pseudolaw. Not pleasant.
His observes the potential positive aspect of pseudolaw is that the public is increasingly involved in law ... well, personally I avoid courts and lawyers. But that's just my bias.
Mmmmm. I don't know about seeing it as a silver lining, but this part - "[..] a symptom of alienation of the public from the living institutions of the law, of lack of legal literacy and meaningful access to justice" seems not unreasonable. I've long held that a factor in the financial side of pseudolaw is the general public seeing the wealthy and well-connected manage facially absurd financial manoeuvres, in a way which makes the existence of a 'magical' get-out-of-debt-free card seem relatively plausible.
Yes! This is exactly what I’m talking about. They see the rich and the powerful doing stupid bullshit and getting away with it, so they want to do that same thing.
Oh, I worked inside a court for over 17 years. Have seen how the sausages get made.
You won't catch me arguing in favour of the common law legal system as being "rules based". Sure, it plays at it, but how else are you going to sell the legal system, in a "democratic" society?
Naturally, "cheat codes" would appeal to members of the public who perceive the scales as weighted against them. So yes, quite agree.
I think the history of Australia is well suited for the attractiveness of alternate grassroots legal systems. It was built on the back of convicts, with outlaws and bushrangers portrayed as folk hero's. We're living on a continent effectively stolen from its first peoples by legal fictions like terra nullius. Their identities, laws, languages and nations literally banned as wards of state, their children stolen to be assimilated. Many Australians struggle to come to terms with the nation's dark past, we have this uneasy feeling occupying land stolen by the so-called "government", institutions which are apparently completely legitimate according to their courts, but not according to general vibe that exists the cultural milieu. The general feeling is that this always was always will be Aboriginal land, and the "government" is a deceptive foreign occupying force.
I'm familiar with Canada, which is quite different in that those senses. The chief identity conflict was English versus French. Most Indigenous populations were in some way brought under Crown authority via formal processes.
Though not all, which is making things "interesting" in one province.
The silver lining may also be because of the intensive research and extreme lengths an adherent goes to in order to build an alternate society. They suddenly comprehend how fragile that sovereignty really is, and therefore realise how fragile current systems are and how much they need protecting.
Rob, I can honestly say i wish that kind of deep dive resulted in more like yourself.