International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 64
“get out jail free” (Netolitzky, 2018c, p. 6 Netolitzky,
2023a, pp. 812-813).10 Contrary to that pattern, CERI
affiliates have for nearly two decades misused the
Criminal Code sections 504, 507.1 private information
procedure to attack those who breach CERI’s foisted
unilateral pseudolegal agreements, or who intrude on
CERI’s purported religious activities (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, paras. 139, 188). As is reviewed below
in Part IV, CERI members now also unsuccessfully use
civil lawsuits to not only retaliate against perceived
opponents, but, additionally, as an ineffective
mechanism to subvert and evade unfavorable court
rulings.
This aggression has occasionally translated into physical
action. For example, a group of CERI members went
so far as to attend the Edmonton Law Courts annual
“Law Day” and were ejected by Sheriffs for their
disruptive and threatening conduct. The group then
tried to retaliate with criminal proceedings (Meads
v Meads, 2012, paras. 139, 188, see also Paraclete,
2012a for Belanger’s version of events). In at least one
other instance, CERI has unsuccessful sought military
intervention against allegedly treasonous judges
(Paraclete, 2010a).
A. CERI Pseudolegal Theory
CERI’s pseudolaw theories have remained largely
unchanged since Belanger founded the group circa
2001. Aside from their religious hook, CERI not-
law concepts are unremarkable and parallel those
employed within the pseudolaw phenomenon world-
wide. Netolitzky (2018c 2021) has reviewed the core
elements of the “pseudolaw memeplex.” CERI employs
all these motifs.
In brief, CERI holds that the King James Bible has
supraconstitutional status since: 1) the (now previous)
head of the Canadian state, Queen Elizabeth II, swore
her Coronation Oath on the King James Bible, 2) the
Coronation Oath is (purportedly) a contract, and 3)
the Queen, as the Supreme Governor of the Church
of England, held the title “Defender of the Faith” (CP
(Re), 2019 ABQB 310, para. 23 Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571, paras. 184-185 Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 627-
10 In contrast, US pseudolaw populations aggressively engage in
“paper terrorism” via spurious liens, abusive litigation, fake vigilante courts,
and even violence (Kalinowski, 2019, pp. 154-155 Kent &Willey, 2013, pp.
319-324 March-Safbom, 2018 McRoberts, 2019, pp. 645-648 Sarteschi,
2021 Sarteschi 2022).
628 Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 102-134). To
date, Belanger has not commented on the implications
of the change of UK monarch. CERI members claim
to be strict King James Bible literalists, and, as true
Christian believers, say they have special legal status
on that basis.
Figure 1 -This CERI logo has been in use by Belanger for
at least 20 years (downloaded from Belanger’s Facebook
page: https://www.facebook.com/Romans1129). Note
the copyright “©” symbol. Belanger’s designation of this
logo as copyright is inconsistent with CERI’s doctrine that
“respecting” government, government actors, and state-made
law, is religiously prohibited and necrophilia. The concept of
copyright, and associated creator’s rights, are solely created by
legislation enacted by government, in Canada that being the
Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42.
Their purported religious advantage works three
ways. First, CERI members claim immunity from
“conventional” law, state authority, and government
regulation. These authorities supposedly contravene
practices and activities identified as Christian. CERI
claims Canadian law is inherently Christian, pointing
to the Coronation Oath. For example, CERI members
cite biblical prohibitions against usury, and claim that
means mortgage contacts cannot bind them (“Alberta
minister,” 2017 Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v
Belanger, 2002b).
However, CERI expands the scope of what is “religious”
far beyond its usual limits. Practically any activity may
be designated as a self-proclaimed “ministerial” duty.
For example, CERI “ministers” claim to be exempt
from motor vehicle legislation any time they operate

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 65
their motor vehicles, a.k.a. “Ecclesiastical Pursuit
Chariots” (Blais, 2012 Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB
571, para. 186). CERI members similarly claim they
are immune from drug production and trafficking
charges (R v Belanger (20 September 2018), Edmonton
180222747P1 (Alta PC)). Residences and apartments
are designated as inviolate CERI “Ecclesia.” These
supposedly religious locations are then purportedly
exempt from search or entry by “de facto” government
actors (Kent &Willey, 2013, pp. 327-328).
Second, CERI claims any interference by law
enforcement or regulatory agencies is a breach of
Criminal Code section 176(1): “Obstructing or violence
to or arrest of officiating clergyman.” CERI members
complain they are “intimidated” from the unrestricted
practice of their so-called Christian religious beliefs
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834, paras. 17-18). CERI
members then file Criminal Code sections 504, 507.1
“private informations” that attempt to initiate criminal
proceedings against police, court, and government
actors who dare intrude into the “ministry of Christ,”
whose scope CERI, itself, defines (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, para. 186 Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB
652, paras. 110-120 Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834, para.
18 Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019
ABQB 283, para. 881).
The third way CERI pseudolaw purportedly provides
immunity to state action is a variation of “Strawman
Theory,” a misconception that, in law, individuals
have two separate and distinct aspects: a flesh and
blood human identified by a name in mixed case
letters, and an immaterial legal doppelganger, the
“Strawman,” identified by a name in all uppercase
letters (d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB
298, paras. 57-70 Meads v Meads, 2012, paras. 417-
446 Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1069-78 Pomerleau v
Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123, paras. 67-
88 Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 134, paras. 10-17
Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 399, paras. 25-33).
The Strawman is supposedly created by, or related to,
birth documentation. Governments allegedly have no
legal authority over a human being, unless the human
is linked to the government via “joinder” through
his or her Strawman. Strawman Theory is so utterly
rejected and denounced by Canadian courts that any
reference to this concept establishes, by default, that
the pseudolaw litigant acts in bad faith and for an
abusive, ulterior motive (Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA
31, paras. 20-21, 40). Despite the courts’ consistent
rejection, the Strawman concept is all but universal in
pseudolaw communities, both in Canada and world-
wide (Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 633-635 Netolitzky, 2019,
pp. 1182-1183).
CERI’s variation on Strawman Theory centres around a
number of King James Bible passages that use the word
“person,” but, in particular, James 2:9, that commands
“if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are
convinced of the law as transgressors.” (CP (Re), 2019
ABQB 310, Appendix B Paraclete, 2014b Potvin (Re),
2018 ABQB 651, Appendix F). Belanger claims this
passage creates an absolute religious prohibition against
any interactions with “persons,” a word Belanger says
is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as dead or non-
human things, including the Strawman, corporations,
government, government actors, courts, and so on.
Obviously, that “person” is the legal definition of
“artificial person,” but Belanger misrepresents that fact.
The “no persons” rule has extravagant aspects. CERI
materials sometimes include pictures of tombstones
with names in all upper-case letters. That, purportedly,
proves “the all-capitalization form denotes a dead,
corporate entity, AKA “Person”” (Potvin (Re), 2018
ABQB 651, para. 119). How a dead human being
could be a corporation is unclear for example, who
would be the corporation/corpse’s shareholders?
Prohibited interactions with dead “persons” are
frequently described as sex or magic: “necrophilia,” and
“necromancy” (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 651, paras.
112-113, 121, 128-131). The “no persons” prohibition
supposedly means CERI members: 1) cannot pay taxes
(“Notice of,” n.d. “Persistent religious,” 2006), 2) honor
their debts to banks (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652,
para. 112), 3) are not subject to legislation (CP (Re),
2019 ABQB 310, paras. 21, 32 R v Berg, 2019 ABQB
541, paras. 48-56) or court processes (Potvin (Re), 2018
ABQB 652, para. 111 R v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541, paras.
48-56), and so on. All that is “respecting” a “person,”
is a “sin,” and strictly forbidden per these supposed
Christian beliefs.
Like most pseudolaw systems (Meads v Meads, 2012
ABQB 571, paras. 379-416, 447-528 Netolitzky,
2018c, pp. 10-13), CERI’s theories includes rules
that “everything is a contract” and that “silence