International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 68
residence, what Belanger called the “Heatherdown
Ecclesia” (Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v
Belanger, 2002a). Belanger immediately rejected the
statement of claim, wrote “Refused for Fraud” on it,
and submitted extensive pseudolaw materials and
documents advancing US-style fractional reserve
banking conspiracy “money-for-nothing” theories
(Netolitzky, 2019, p. 1177).
Belanger’s conduct escalated after the property was
subject to a court-ordered sale (Canada Trustco
Mortgage Company v Belanger, 2002c). He demanded
police intervention (“Letter to City of Edmonton,”
2002), and declared “I am intent to defend [the
Heatherdown Ecclesia] with my life if that is what it
takes. Martyrdom is sometimes the only way to prove
a point and I am willing to do that.” (Canada Trustco
Mortgage Company v Belanger, 2002d). “Blood of a
martyr always looks good and I have instructed my
Church members to continue the story after my demise
on the internet and public webservers of news and
events concerning the Coronation Ceremony.” (“Notice
To,” n.d.). When RCMP contacted Belanger in relation
to the foreclosure, Belanger denied the RCMP had any
authority--Belanger is a “minister” (“Notice To,” n.d.).
Belanger’s family was ordered to vacate the property
(Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v Belanger,
2002e). When Belanger and his wife attended court,
Belanger was ejected by security. Belanger’s wife
attempted to facilitate sale of the property. Belanger’s
threats escalated such that the RCMP subsequently
recommended an RCMP escort when anyone attended
the Ecclesia (Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v
Belanger, 2002g). The Court ultimately authorized the
RCMP use force to eject Belanger from the property
(Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v Belanger,
2002f), and in early 2003 the property was sold in a
court-directed sale.
Apparently undeterred, Belanger became a fixture in
Canadian and US pseudolaw circles, promoting his
ideas in forums such as Ecclesia.org (source, 2004)
and Cannabis Culture (Guest_*, 2004). In the latter
discussion, Belanger is debating with Robert Arthur
Menard, the founder of the Freeman-on-the-Land
movement. The scope and scale of CERI activities
during this period is difficult to gauge. A few reported
court judgments are clearly associated with Belanger
and his ideas (e.g., R v Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470 R
v fidler, 2009 BCSC 1253). Some media reports of
Canadian pseudolaw proceedings are clearly linked to
CERI (Kent &Willey, 2013, pp. 328-329).
Ecclesiastical “notices” and related documents are one
possible method to identify and generally quantify
CERI activity. Many are posted on Belanger’s personal
website, “All Creator’s Gifts,”12 and an associated blog.13
If correct, then those materials confirm that CERI was
a small group. For example, in 2007, only three such
documents were posted on the All Creator’s Gifts blog
(“Letter to Douglas Finley,” 2007 “Manitoba Notary,”
2007 “Private agreements,” 2007). At times Belanger
has operated as an itinerant guru, living in a motor
home, and relocating from customer to customer.
Belanger’s recent Internet videos imply he has once
again adopted this nomadic lifestyle (owlmon, 2022b).
Belanger has been repeatedly incarcerated for criminal
activity, despite Belanger teaching followers that
he is outside of, and exempt from, Canadian law.
Most recently, in 2018, Belanger received 2.5-month
sentences for motor vehicle and drug offenses
(R v Belanger (20 September 2018), Edmonton
180222747P1 (Alta PC) R v Belanger (3 April 2019),
Edmonton 180995987P1 (Alta PC)). The degree to
which the Canadian pseudolaw communities are
aware of that criminal activity is unclear. Another
factor that has probably played against Belanger and
CERI is his vocal antisemitism. For example, Belanger
in his video broadcasts has described Jewish practices
of sexual assault of non-Jewish girls, a death penalty
for reading the Talmud, and Jewish conspiratorial
activities (Hilfskreuzer Möwe, 2014 Paraclete, 2014b).
This pattern continues to the present, with Belanger
recently denouncing a lawyer as a “white Zionist jew”
(owlmon, 2022b).
Throughout his pseudolaw guru career, Belanger has
been highly persistent and aggressive, but has exhibited
minimal competence either in court proceedings, or as
a legal advisor. Associate Chief Justice Rooke observed
in Meads v Meads (2012 ABQB 571, para. 187) that
CERI documents and arguments, that are apparently
often prepared personally by Belanger, are unusually
haphazard “cut and paste” assemblages (e.g., Belanger,
12 Website: http://www.allcreatorsgifts.org/.
13 Website: http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.com.

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 69
2012). That said, Belanger clearly understands he can
exploit judicial “hot buttons” (Unrau v National Dental
Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283, paras. 291-304)
by framing his and other CERI activities as aspects
of religious belief, complaining of discrimination,
demanding accommodation, and alleging procedural
defects.
These observations raise the question of where CERI’s
pseudolaw scheme originated. Available evidence
is sufficient to confirm Belanger is just one of many
pseudolaw promoters who have simply copied someone
else’s concepts. In most ways that use of these strategies
is not a surprise, since pseudolaw is so uniform, world-
wide. The promissory note and fractional banking
theory arguments employed during the Heatherdown
Ecclesia foreclosure were obviously derived from US
sources (Netolitzky, 2019, p. 1177). CERI’s recent
international treaties as supraconstitutional authorities
argument was blatantly copied from Freeman-on-the-
Land John Spirit (Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 812-813).
How about CERI’s trademark and cornerstone King
James Bible “no respecter of persons” argument? The
CERI scheme was all but fully developed when first
deployed. Given Belanger’s otherwise notable lack
of innovation or, for that matter, competence, the
plausible conclusion is he did not invent the King James
Bible “no respecter of persons” argument, but, instead,
copied it from a pre-existing religion-based Sovereign
Citizen source. Since Belanger does not reveal the
basis for his materials, or acknowledge that CERI is a
derivative product, the exact template that Belanger
used is unknown. That said, Belanger almost certainly
relied on a pre-2000 pseudolaw text: the “Book of the
Hundreds,” that appears to exist in at least five editions,
though the dates of publication and authorship are
not clear. At present, an apparently complete “Fourth
Edition: Revised -With Updates” is publicly available
(several bondmen and unprofitable servants of our
Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, n.d.). Template
documents in the Fourth Edition: Revised suggest that
text was prepared in 1999. CERI’s scheme and concepts
match the content and form letters in the Book of the
Hundreds. Furthermore, CERI’s bible-based theories
also have parallels to ideas that were promoted around
2000 on US websites such as lawgiver.org14 and in the
14 Archived website: http://web.archive.org/web/19991011190135/
http://iresist.com/nbn/.
ecclesia.org forum.15
The “Book of the Hundreds,” and its religion-based
variation on pseudolaw, is no longer commonly
encountered anywhere. That means that no matter
exactly what source Belanger copied, Belanger certainly
is the most vigorous and persistent proponent of the
“no respecter of persons” pseudolaw motif, worldwide.
C. Is CERI a Religious Community?
As previously discussed, CERI’s members now demand
that government, court, and law enforcement actors
“accommodate” their purported religious beliefs.
That demand raises an obvious question: do CERI’s
members genuinely and sincerely believe that the
King James Bible globally prohibits them from being
a “respecter” of “persons,” where “persons” means
governments, private corporations, and other entities
with legal status that are not human beings? This
question is important in law because any reliance on
purported religious belief and the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms has a threshold requirement that
the claimant establish “sincere” religious belief (Alberta
v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37,
para. 32 Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47,
paras. 46, 55, 65), or non-religious belief (Mouvement
laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, para.
86).
Several Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench16 decisions
explicitly reject that CERI’s members hold sincere
and honest religious beliefs (e.g., CP (Re), 2019 ABQB
310, paras. 33-34 CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388, para. 14
Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652). Even if one ignores that
key aspects of CERI dogma, such as Strawman Theory,
are universally rejected by Canadian courts, additional
facts also strongly imply CERI beliefs are not genuine,
and, instead, are opportunistic “flags of convenience”
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, para. 133).
First, some persons who used CERI concepts have a
pattern of sequentially adopting and dropping multiple,
15 Archived website: http://web.archive.org/web/20011006090948/
http://ecclesia.org/forum/portal_content.asp.
16 This Court is currently named the Alberta Court of King’s Bench,
as the Court’s name transitioned from “Queen’s Bench” to “King’s Bench”
on the death of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8, 2022. The same name
change has occurred for certain other Canadian legal institutions. For clarity,
this article uses “Queen’s Bench,” and “King’s Bench,” to reflect the language
used to identify the Court at the time of a decision, step, or when a document
was filed or prepared.