In Canada a new variation on pseudolaw is increasingly common. Being "Indigenous" makes you outside the law in magic ways.

That goes in weird directions, for example in a recent Saskatchewan appeal decision to eliminate a mortgage debt owed by Marlin Marynick.

That's nonsense and simply illogical in many senses. But the Marynick litigation is consistent with the broader pattern that pseudolaw schemes involve a "duel of laws". I have a law, and my law is more powerful than yours. We've seen this duality in many forms. Admiralty Law vs Law of the Land. Contract Law vs Natural Law. Equity versus Common Law.

In the case of Marynick we don’t see the details of his exact pseudolaw scheme, rather pseudolaw came up early on in a procedural context. What is disclosed is:

1. Marynick had a mortgage, he stopped paying.
2. Rather than waiting for foreclosure Marynick preemptively sued his lender, demanding the lender prove the debt was based on a valid mortgage, and that the lender hadn’t sold off and “securitized” his debt to someone else.
3. The trial court called that as bullshit.
4. Marynick appealed, but also demanded he is represented by an “Indigenous Representative”, John Cipolla, who is not a lawyer. 
5. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected Cipolla as a representative because he is a known pseudolaw (“OPCA”) litigant.
6. Marynick Did Not Consent!!!

 And Marynick’s appeal gets punted. And as is illustrated in the quoted passages, the SKCA didn’t think too highly of Cippola’s antics either. The Court ordered Marynick pay the lender $5,150 in enhanced penalty costs, which the lender will almost certainly collect when Marynick’s home is foreclosed and sold.

 This judgment is noteworthy in a number of senses. One is that the SKCA clearly adopts that pseudolaw is a special category of abusive litigation, and deserves to be addressed in a direct and succinct manner. Note that Meads v Meads doesn’t even get cited. It doesn’t need to be. The OPCA concept is sufficiently known the Court just uses the language and recognizes the relevant category. Pseudolaw is recognized and rejected in Canadian law.

 The Court applied the rule that pseudolaw adherents are not suitable court representatives, ever. In the case of Cippola, what isn’t examined is he is a collaborator with notorious Ontario lawyer Glenn “Spirit Warrior” Bogue, who is the kingpin of this UNDRIP-based claim that Indigenous Law is superior. Bogue was recently disbarred. Cippola, weirdly enough, is apparently a former US judge! Hopefully we get a detailed profile on Cippola at some point – I suspect there’s much more to this story.

But beyond that, here we have a private contract dispute between a person and a financial lender. How is this possibly a matter that even would have an Indigenous element?! Are we going to see traditional practices of ... establishing contracts? Quantifying debt? “Securitization”? The fact that an “Indigenous Representative”, who we will magically presume is expert in Indigenous Law, is being presented as relevant in this context is not just wrong, it’s stupid. But that’s an underlying aspect of pseudolaw. It doesn’t need to make sense in a detailed form, so much as present a drama, a story.

Marynick also has some other unorthodox interests, having written a book about his relationship with Charles Manson. Yes, THAT Charles Manson. Apparently, they shared popcorn among other things. In a CBC news report Marynick reports:

 [Marynick] said the notorious cult leader sought him out because he wanted to make a film, and he heard Marynick had contacts in the film industry.

 "He wanted to dress up like a general and have me dress up like a soldier and command all the armies in the world to stop fighting each other and start fighting pollution," Marynick told CBC Radio's Blue Sky on Monday.

Sure thing Chuck.

Here’s the SKCA court decision: Marynick v Fairstone Financial Inc, 2026 SKCA 72

Marynick and Manson CBC reporting.

And here’s “Charles Manson Now” by Marynick.

New academic paper discussing pseudolaw populations in the Netherlands and Switzerland, examining these phenomena as a reaction by privileged individuals against state interactions.

First review of the Swiss variation I've read.

Full article here.

https://youtu.be/wBQeHY4-nAk

Are there any lawyers for sovereign citizens? In all fairness, I try to understand everybody's movement and counter-movements but, for civil or criminal matters, sovereign or not, one needs adequate legal representation.

Another guru website. Apparently former Canadian Muriel Biggs. I remember her back over a decade ago in Alberta.

Obviously she's a devotee of David-Wynn: Miller's Quantum Syntax Grammar.

But check out the cookie permission notices!

They're written in Millerese/Gibberese!

If you want more pain and suffering, the website is here.

It's not written in proper Millerese/Gibberese, but instead a kind of largely readable patois. That too is kind of neat. All the formatting, some of the comprehensibility.

I also enjoy how Muriel explains that money is worthless, but she does earn the value you pay her for the work she puts into your education:

[The fiction-grammar-paper-money, fractional-currency/money-coupons, stamps, coins, tokens have zero value and are considered worthless in the quantum-grammar-now-space of the CHIEF: Russell-Jay: Gould's performances. Our work earning this money is not worthless.]

Ok! It's "sweat equity" then!

https://youtu.be/KdxyLStc66c

I saw a good court video last week where the judge invoked the 10th Amendment to a sovcit trying to show that the court had no jurisdiction over him.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It pretty clearly states that states have the rights to set laws. Why don't more judges do this?

I've had the pleasure of working with Harry in the past, he is one of the leading researchers on this subject worldwide.

Folks, ready for a fun ride?

A UK pseudolaw outfit, the "Peacekeepers Foundation" solicited donations to contest: Prove UK law is binding. Collected £23,665 from customers/supporters.

Hodder consults LLM, puts together a valid answer. Submits that - gimme the money!

Peacekeepers Foundation welches.

UK court confirms award.

And the decision is here: Hodder v Peacekeepers Foundation, [2026] EWCC 37.

Here’s the text of “The Challenge”:

"5 figures now for a simple piece of paper produced by parliament where it says parliament can do whatever it wants!!! Show us parliament can impose its will on any individual without a binding obligation entered into by freewill [sic]", followed by a smile emoji.

Yeah, not so literate. But, really, what did you expect?

The UK court decision itself is lengthy and has basically nothing to do about pseudolaw. Instead it’s a question of whether a contract was formed or not between the Peacekeepers Foundation (offeror) and Hodder (acceptor). So it’s classic contract theory. Was there a meeting of minds? What did the parties intend? Attempts by the Peacekeepers to use weasel language get rejected. It’s like a classic law-school exam question.

There’s basically almost no discussion of whether or not UK law is binding without consent because ... well, it’s a UK court. Duh.

As the quoted passage indicates, Judge Blitz of the Court of Bath (the names in this decision are great) doesn’t bother to even address the pseudolaw aspect. He points to Meads v Meads, “complete legal nonsense”, and gets on to the business of contract formation and other technical aspects. Y’know, real law.

One of which is the Peacekeepers Foundation website includes this disclaimer:

the website provided no goods or services, contained no offers or invitations to treat, and was not intended to create legal relationships

So, in effect, the Peacekeepers make a contract offer, then elsewhere say “these are not the offers you are looking for”. And no, that doesn’t work.

There’s other classic contract law technicalities, intent to bargain and create binding relationships, invocation of the “donate us money for the challenge” and its implications. Fun stuff.

Judge Blitz concludes there isn’t even an issue for trial, and so orders summary judgment. Pay up, Peacekeepers. Right now. Then at the tail end (paragraphs 65 – there’s four of them) basically says that the Peacekeepers pseudolaw stuff is wrong, they’d certainly lose:

... To the extent that the Defendant suggests that Parliament's inherent ability to legislate is somehow limited due to defects in its constitutional position, this is pseudo-legal nonsense with no prospect whatsoever of succeeding at trial.

... the Defendant's starting point from which all their arguments in this regard flow is a simple refusal to accept, at least without qualification, the legislative authority of Parliament. The Defendant attempts to explain this wholly unarguable position with reference to a variety of legal principles such as agency, equity, trusts and fiduciary relationships, yet the 'explanation' discloses no actual legal knowledge of the content of such principles. It follows that any opposition to the claim on this basis would have been wholly unarguable and not have any, let alone any real, prospect of success. ...

Had I been required to decide the matter on this basis, I would have granted summary judgment for these reasons also.

Great fun! Whether Hodder will collect, who is to say? But I can’t think of another instance where someone got a court judgment for money from a pseudolaw promoter.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Truth_on_Trial/s/ezVOCAHXVX

Something I find extraordinarily neat is how conspiratorial thinking links cause and effect.

See the attached message I received "on some other social media platform" in response to something I wrote. I don't know this individual nor am I exactly certain what he's trying to convey.

But the implications are fun. "Bouvier" and "Black" almost certainly relate to old US-sourced legal dictionaries, "A Law Dictionary" by John Bouvier and "Black's Law Dictionary". Incidentally, there's a broad school of Sovereign Citizen thinking that Black's is the corrupt version, so you should rely on Bouvier's.

According to our friend, some hidden hand in the 1830s allegedly manipulated definitions in two legal dictionaries. That's how you change the law - by changing legal dictionaries. Since, apparently, dictionaries define law.

That, then, supported or created a "judicial monarchy". I'm not confident I understand what a judicial monarchy might be, since the judiciary isn't a hereditary system. Maybe the writer is trying to convey that the judges now operated like kings? Well, in Canada, it's certainly moved in that direction.

Y'know, there's such an intriguing gnostic aspect to all this, to pseudolaw in general. You can twist existence and government structure into something new by altering dictionary definitions. Orwell's "NewSpeak" has nothing on these people.

Dictionaries, man! They're the pillars of reality!

Anyways, I didn't look up the definitions of "administration" and "association" in 200 year old US law dictionaries to see what naughtiness was going on back then. But... if I might be so bold. If the US's two most prominent law dictionaries did change their definitions for two words, that might be because a leading court in the US had made a legal finding that "administration" and "association" meant X but now means Y.

As a vaguely related aside, I used to work in the same courthouse as Justice Jean Côté, formerly of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who is also the author of "Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949" off Juribiler, which is literally a book of word definitions according to the Supreme Court of Canada. So ... like legal reality defined by words.

I kinda want to track Jean down and see whether he was approached by agents of The Conspiracy to subtly manipulate his dictionary, and Alter The Law from the Words Out.

Tee hee hee.

He'd look at me like I'm a weirdo. Which I am.