Abstract
This article examines the growing phenomenon of self-represented litigants utilising the "strawman duality" form of pseudolegal argument, and the risk of trial judges grappling with the issue. It describes the emergence of a "strawman trap" whereby, attempts by unwary trial judges to cut the Gordian knot of the convoluted pseudolaw arguments may become an appealable error. It then outlines several different approaches that may be used by trial judges to avoid this trap, and to otherwise deal with pseudolaw challenges. It argues that pseudolaw is an increasingly problematic phenomenon detrimentally affecting both the administration of justice and the interests of litigants, but that a more informed approach can aid the effective diffusing of the threat posed by it.