See? Sometimes good stuff does come from pseudolaw.

As collateral damage.

Like seriously, I just saw the video of a police ripping a lady window who was claiming that like she was traveling but in a non commercial vehicle, but she was in a car. The reason she said all that was to ig not showing her I.D or anything. She got arrested still

So my question is has that ever worked with the sovereign citizenship claim because everything I’ve seen would say otherwise

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.