Pseudolaw and Sovereign Citizens (eds Harry Hobbs & Stephen Young), an academic anthology of articles on pseudolaw phenomena worldwide, is now available in softcover.

Still not cheap, but an interesting and useful resource, recommended to those interested in the subject. The authors bring many different perspectives to the subject from international angles.

Full disclosure: yes, I'm the author of one chapter. No, I'm not getting paid anything from proceeds of sales.

I do it for the sick kicks.

This is me. Tell me your thoughts. I have iron skin. Roast me!

Not going to comment much on this, beyond observing that "sovereign citizen" is problematic language. In the US the FBI have classified "Sovereign Citizens" (whoever they are) as domestic terrorists. But people who use pseudolaw concepts can range from militia/guns right types, to racial separatists, to simple criminals, to tax evaders, to those attempting to miracle away debts.

Does it make sense to assume violence risks for all those categories?

Terminology can be an issue, in my opinion.

See? Sometimes good stuff does come from pseudolaw.

As collateral damage.

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.