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.
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.
