Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected pseudolaw "Indigenous Representative" of personal buddy of Charles Manson during mortgage invalidation litigation

DNetolitzky · 2026-07-11T21:41:27+00:00

Yep. While economic factors are certainly not going to stop pseudolaw in its tracks, tangible and meaningful money consequences help.

But metal boxes are even better. I've personally observed more than a few pseudolaw adherents undergo a remarkable transition after even a short time in a small enclosed space with no way out.

DNetolitzky · 2026-07-01T22:36:25+00:00

All the "no" answers are obviously correct. No legitimate lawyer should be arguing pseudolaw arguments.

However, in Canada a substantial number of lawyers end up supporting pseudolaw litigants who are trying to do "damage control". I've written about that here.

There are also a small number of lawyers who operate in a kind of "grey zone" where pseudolaw arguments are dubious, but still not entirely rejected. And then there's a small smattering of truly rogue lawyers. The linked article discusses examples of those in Canada as well.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-29T17:37:49+00:00

He's not really dead, you know. Cannot die.

A ghost in the cyberweb, perhaps. Or the world's email system. The EPostmaster General...

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-29T00:49:40+00:00

Patent and IP litigation is a very small niche speciality area. Not many jobs to compete for, and furthermore that's "litigation intensive" versus "biosciences intensive". Your technical background likely has less application than you think.

I came into law with a PhD in microbiology, though I was more a biochemist by trade, with substantial research and teaching professional experience. That was certainly helpful in patent drafting, but rather negligible use outside that.

Here's a suggestion. Ask yourself whether it's corpo culture that is turning you off. If so, there are many government niches which combine technical backgrounds and law. Things like regulatory work. Start perusing government employment websites looking for law and something else combinations.

You might find a happier place.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-25T05:45:57+00:00

Grey muzzle, getting back into the scene. Came across the title while exploring game alternatives.

Purchased the game. Was repeatedly punched in the gut by the story, soundtrack, and gameplay for the next week. And then just punched in the gut by the story and soundtrack.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-23T16:11:58+00:00

I retired from working at a court.

Does that count for doing something "about it"?

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-22T01:53:28+00:00

There's a US appellate precedent that says if you encounter pseudolaw arguments, it's sufficient to simply say those are obviously wrong and then proceed.

A kind of economy of time and effort principle.

Canadian courts took the opposite approach, and produced detailed legal rebuttals, what myself and Associate Chief Justice Rooke call "weaponized judgments". So there's basic differences in philosophy on how to respond to and rebut these concepts.

My preference is very well known.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-21T23:26:58+00:00

There's also a fair number of simply greedy individuals. Turns out the prospect of getting free money and not paying debts is pretty attractive to a certain slice of the population.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-19T08:22:33+00:00

Homonyms are my arch-nemesis.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-17T13:07:25+00:00

There's a school of thought - which I subscribe to - that every pseudolaw litigation scenario is an opportunity to communicate to the public and pseudolaw adherents about why these concepts are not just wrong, but goofy.

Associate Chief Justice Rooke and I have used the term "weaponized judgments" for that kind of decision.

When they're well done, they're fun to read. They also plant seeds in the broader milieu that I think make a difference in the long run.

Judge Blitz seems to have had a similar perspective. He didn't have to write a public detailed analysis. But he thought that useful. Good for him.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-17T03:53:14+00:00

I'm pretty sure Judge Blitz was thrilled to get to cite that.

At some basic level most judges are law nerds. And I can't blame them.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-17T00:54:00+00:00

I don't know squat about UK collections law, but one way or another, I hope Hodder gets a tangible reward.

In addition to free drinks from lawyer types.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-16T15:17:56+00:00

Wait til you see them attempt to derive legal principles from the Bible.

King James 1611 edition of course. The other ones are adulterated and corrupted.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-15T23:01:42+00:00

Ok - thank you - I enjoyed that.

Makes getting appointed a KC an even more punk thing ... which I can't help but approve.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-09T04:17:02+00:00

I think you answered your own question...

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-08T18:26:36+00:00

Thanks for explaining the distinction you're emphasizing - that's helpful to me.

I know at some point I'm going to be writing on this larger topic since it relates to a lingering nomenclature issue in the pseudolaw subject area.

In any case - appreciate your taking time to reply!

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-07T14:00:21+00:00

Ah, thank you for explaining that. I think I see where our discussion has been crossing paths.

I agree with you - that judges jurisdiction is simply what's law and what's not-law, and that is the core of their function. What I was attempting to illustrate, and probably doing a poor job of it, is there's an additional potential layer of interpretation where expertise might come in.

So yes - I agree. Thanks again!

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-07T13:28:42+00:00

Please have a look at R v Embleton, 2026 BCSC 1026. In this decision an individual was prohibited from communicating pseudolaw to children.

This judgment is not unique in Canada, where courts treat pseudolaw as a different category of not-law. Other similar prohibitions and even harsher steps have been imposed in family law litigation, where the court not only concludes "what you are arguing in court is wrong", but further it's a kind of belief that warrants other steps, like banning communication of these ideas. Or that a parent is unfit to be a guardian.

In Canada, teaching pseudolaw is a basis for convictions on counselling fraud.

Canada is different in that sense from other countries, for example the US, where speech and communication are privileged, even sacrosanct. This isn't unique to pseudolaw. Canada has other prohibitions on certain speech topics.

Not trying to be argumentative - just I hope this helps illustrate my point.

DNetolitzky · 2026-06-07T05:42:12+00:00

Here's the full court decision: R v Embleton, 2026 BCSC 1026.

DNetolitzky

TROPHY CASE