“Various terms have been used to describe “pseudolegal arguments”.such as those advocated by the appellant in this case. (Adelaide City Council v Lepse  SASC 66,  (Peek J). They have without reservation been rejected as involving both legal nonsense and an unnecessary waste of scarce public and judicial resources.
These include the “blood and bone” defence: in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571,  (Rooke ACJ) referred to a defendant insisting that “the court state whether it is addressing the litigant in one of two roles, such as whether this is to a “legal person” or a “corporation”, vs. a “flesh and blood person”, or a “natural person””. So too here. (Kosteska v Magistrate Manthey  QCA 105,  (Martin J); Re Magistrate M M Flynn; Ex parte McJannett  WASC 372.)
It is regrettable that the appellant has advocated the various pseudolegal arguments underpinning this appeal. If he has acted on the advice of others, he is well advised to stop doing so. His decision to defend has resulted in a trivial parking fine escalating to a financial burden exceeding $2,000. Each ground of appeal is without merit and the appeal is dismissed. After hearing the parties on costs, and pursuant to r 238 of the Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 (SA), the respondent is entitled to costs, fixed at $500, together with transcript costs of $178.30, a total of $678.30.”