International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 60
Jesus Built My Strawman: The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption
International and “minister” Edward Jay Robin Belanger
Donald J. Netolitzky, PhD, K.C.
Alberta Court of King’s Bench
Abstract: The Canada-based Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI] falsely purports to be
a community of strict King James Bible literalists. CERI’s religious claims are a strategic mask for the “church’s”
true nature and objectives. CERI is a “legal cult,” a group organized around a central guru figure: “minister”
Edward Jay Robin Belanger. This fake church’s doctrine combines stereotypic pseudolaw concepts derived from the
US Sovereign Citizen movement, conspiratorial anti-government and anti-Semitic beliefs, with passages from the
1611 King James Bible. CERI and Belanger make no faith-based promises, but, instead, claim that a combination
of esoteric paperwork, proclamations of Christian status, and demands for international treaty-based religious
accommodation, grants CERI’s members special and extraordinary advantages (e.g., to defy and neutralize
government authority, eliminate debts, and escape sanction for criminal misconduct).
This study investigates CERI and Belanger’s nearly 25-year history of pseudolaw and criminal activity, using 21
Canadian legal proceedings conducted between 2009-2019 to develop a profile of CERI’s followers, CERI litigation
tactics, and to explore the usually short-lived relationships between Belanger and his followers. CERI is the most
aggressive and litigious Canadian pseudolaw group, but CERI adherents and Belanger consistently fail in court.
CERI and Belanger are relevant to the developing understanding of the broader social impact and operation of
pseudolaw, as an example of a long-duration but small population group. While many pseudolaw groups are true
social communities, CERI functions primarily as a parasite/host pairing, where Belanger exploits those who adopt
CERI strategies. This legal cult of personality operates chiefly within the broader Canadian pseudolaw ecosystem,
but in a marginal, though remarkably persistent, manner.
Keywords: Pseudolaw, Law, Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, OPCA, Sovereign Citizen,
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, CERI, Edward Jay Robin Belanger, minister Belanger,
paraclete Belanger, King James Bible
I. Introduction
Pseudolaw is a collection of concepts that sound like
law, and that often include legal language (McRoberts,
2019, pp. 637-644 Netolitzky, 2018a, pp. 420-421
Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 164-170), but that are false and
rejected by courts worldwide (Kalinowski, 2019
McRoberts, 2019 Netolitzky, 2019). Pseudolaw is a
product that is marketed to gullible and conspiratorial
individuals, who are promised pseudolaw will replace
and displace “conventional” law, granting marginal
and dissident populations extraordinary authority and
other benefits (Netolitzky, 2021).
The underlying conceptual skeleton of pseudolaw
is startlingly consistent and conserved, world-wide
(Netolitzky, 2021). A kind of evolutionary pressure
explains why only one school of not-law at present
dominates the worldwide ecosystem of counter-
authority and unreasonable beliefs. Modern pseudolaw
incubated in US Sovereign Citizen communities
for decades, and perhaps over a hundred years.1
Around 2000, the resulting mature “Sovereign Citizen
1 Reviewed in Sarteschi (2020, pp. 1-8) and Cash (2022, pp. 3-9). At
this point a detailed understanding of the antecedents to US pseudolaw is
probably out of reach. Berger (2016, pp. 6, 13) observes that investigation
of pre-Internet precursors to the modern Sovereign Citizen movement leads
to “an incomplete [record] contained in ephemeral small-press publications
and pamphlets.” Sullivan (1999, p. 818) stresses the small-scale and informal
character of these publications. For at least a decade much US pseudolaw
activity primarily occurred in “dial up” computer BBS (bulletin board
systems). Needless to say, very little of the BBS period resources, records,
and in-group discussions remain accessible.
doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006/004

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 61
Memeplex” was distributed internationally into other
jurisdictions. US-derived pseudolaw spread worldwide
into many countries throughout the Commonwealth,
and also into certain civil law jurisdictions (Netolitzky,
2018b Netolitzky, 2023a Sarteschi, 2022a). The
apparently diverse modern manifestations of pseudolaw
masks this common origin and shared foundation of
not-law rules (Netolitzky, 2021).
A significant volume of analysis and commentary has
accumulated that examines and explains pseudolaw
and its associated populations. These studies are
typically produced by legal authorities and academics,
criminologists, threat assessment investigators, and
social scientists who research violence and terrorism.
To date, the majority of studies have addressed:
1. pseudolaw’s not-law theories
2. how groups that employ pseudolaw are in
conflict with state, law enforcement, and court
actors and
3. illegal and violent activity, and the potential
for such, from populations that use pseudolaw.
Globally, that means what is documented about
pseudolaw phenomena has either: 1) a legal or law-
oriented focus, or, 2) emphasized and evaluated the
observed and potential threat characteristics that result
from pseudolaw.
Until recently, the social sciences have directed
comparatively little investigation into the characteristics
of individual pseudolaw adherents, groups, and the
pseudolaw leadership guru caste. One of the few
exceptions are studies by mental health professionals
that have consistently concluded that adoption and use
of pseudolaw is an expression of fringe and extremist
political belief, rather than the product of mental
disorder and delusion (Paradis, Owen, &McCullough,
2018 Parker, 2014 Parker, 2018 Pytyck &Chaimowitz,
2013). That finding is highly significant, since the very
unusual behaviour and language used by pseudolaw
adherents naturally suggests mental health issues and
delusional behaviour.2
1
2 See Holoyda (2022) for a parallel pattern with QAnon conspiracy
adherents.
One now-established fact is that adoption, belief
in, and applications of pseudolaw are highly social
phenomena. While, in theory, a person could become
involved in and adopt pseudolaw by simply picking
up books and reading on the Internet, true “lone
wolf” pseudolaw users are very unusual. Instead,
investigation of pseudolaw’s adherents almost always
reveals these persons are part of an often sequestered
and/or marginalized social community where the
pseudolaw adherent interacts with other aligned parties
(Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 635-636).
One of the less understood, but very interesting, aspects
of pseudolaw culture is how pseudolaw populations
are organized and structured. Observers have drawn
parallels between pseudolaw movements and cults
(Kent &Willey, 2013 Netolitzky, 2023b, I). A further
larger parallel likely exists with terrorist communities
(Banisadr, 2009 Centner, 2003 Challacombe, 2022
Levine, 1999). Many pseudolaw-using groups have
an obvious central organizing figure, who holds
that position based on (claimed) special privileged
knowledge of law, conspiratorial government control
structures, and secret hidden histories (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, paras. 85-158). The usual practice is to
call these persons “gurus.” However, the social activity
of these gurus is little studied, as are the mechanisms
by which in-group identity and membership are
established, and discipline and orthodoxy maintained.
In short, if pseudolaw movements do operate like cults,
we, at present, understand little about the internal
anatomy and mechanics of these populations as
communities.
That lack of understanding has begun to change. This
article follows on two recent studies that evaluated
markedly different pseudolaw populations. First, the
UK and Commonwealth Magna Carta Lawful Rebels
[MCLR] claimed that an oath of fealty to Lord Craigmyle
of Invernesshire granted complete immunity from state
authority, that had, in any case, purportedly collapsed
in 2001 (Netolitzky, 2023b Netolitzky, 2023c, IV). The
MCLR was a largely online phenomenon with tens of
thousands of adherents, centered on two guru figures,
who promised seizures of government institutions,
and “the gallows” for government and court actors.
Nothing came of those plans, and, by the end of 2021,
the MCLR had essentially evaporated, despite not
having been challenged by any significant state or