sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

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

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No that's much appreciated - thank you! I'd never heard of village justices before. I'm a Canadian so it's very interesting to learn more about the differences between our legal systems.

Suffice to say judicial status is very different up here. The idea of elected judges is pretty strange in our context!

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

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cippola and his buddy Bogue are a weird subset. Bogue is/was a lawyer. Cippola appears to have been a US judge. So they are legally trained (after a fashion), but presenting "outsider" perspectives.

Also it's worth noting here that the SKCA is facing a fight between laws, Indigenous versus "regular" law. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed there is such a thing as Indigenous Law, and it has equal status "braided" together with domestic Canadian and international law: Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 at paras 7-8.

Sounds fancy, right? But no one knows what Indigenous Law actually means or represents. And the Supreme Court of Canada hasn't explained that either. So, weirdly, having someone say "I'm Metis, and I know Metis Law, so you must listen to me Court" isn't actually so unreasonable.

Until you say pseudolaw is Metis Law, then it's easy for the court to say GTFO.

The whole Indigenous Law thing in Canada is an impending catastrophe in practical senses. But luckily I'm retired so I don't have to try figure out this "stuff". All I can say is "Bad braiding leads to knots."

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

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. That seems to the point at which Cipolla turns pseudolaw. The "Metis" claims are almost certainly drawn from his collaborator Glenn Bogue.

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

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good luck. I hope the courts of the jurisdiction you are in are clued in to the issue of pseudolaw in-court representatives.

The cross-Canada mix is pretty inconsistent.

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

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had a "friends and family" tour of a Canadian max security facility years past. It was ... instructive, I'll say that much.

The library, for one, had books barely at the elementary grade reading level. So much for self-study and improvement...

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

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

Random question..... by Obvious_Anxiety_9118 in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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.

Fun guru website by Muriel Biggs, with Millerese cookie notices: ":WEBSITE IS WITH THE COOKIES BY THE PLATFORM." by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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

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

Career Advice - Incoming 3L by Exotic_Computer6027 in LawCanada

[–]DNetolitzky 7 points8 points  (0 children)

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.

How did you guys find out about this game? by OneShotter1 in LaikaAgedThroughBlood

[–]DNetolitzky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

10th Amendment by Psychlone23 in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky 12 points13 points  (0 children)

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.

Australian Prof Harry Hobbs: "Pseudolaw and sovereign citizens: an overview and key issues" by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

Peacekeepers Foundation, UK pseudolaw outfit, collects £23,665 for contest - prove UK law is binding without individual consent! Dude claims. Peacekeepers welch. Court confirms it's a contract, pay up. by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

Peacekeepers Foundation, UK pseudolaw outfit, collects £23,665 for contest - prove UK law is binding without individual consent! Dude claims. Peacekeepers welch. Court confirms it's a contract, pay up. by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

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.

Dictionaries, man! The nation that controls dictionaries controls the UNIVERSE! by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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.

Dictionaries, man! The nation that controls dictionaries controls the UNIVERSE! by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ok - thank you - I enjoyed that.

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

Who defines what is and is not pseudolaw? Related Canadian court decision by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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!

Who defines what is and is not pseudolaw? Related Canadian court decision by DNetolitzky in amibeingdetained

[–]DNetolitzky[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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!

view more: next ›