International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 70
different, and incompatible pseudolaw strategies,
one after the other. For example, pseudolaw litigant
Alfred Potvin within only a short time switched from a
secular pseudolaw scheme, then adopted “Legal Name
Fraud” concepts promoted by UK New Age transvestite
pseudolaw guru “kate of kaea” (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB
652, para. 27), switched to another secular Freemanist
guru, and then claimed to be a CERI King James Bible
literalist (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 125-126).
Finally, in late 2019, Potvin repeatedly sent the Alberta
Court of Queen’s Bench demands that announce
Potvin is now the “General Executor” of the “ALFRED
GERALD POTVIN Living Estate Trust” (Potvin (Re),
2019 ABQB 785 Potvin (Re), 2019 ABQB 802), despite
Potvin’s previous CERI-based religious declarations
that for him to associate in any way with that “Trust,”
a “person,” would “commune with the dead, which
is necromancy, and places me in Danger of Hellfire”
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 111, 130).
Similarly, James Knutson’s odyssey through pseudolaw
involved, sequentially: 1) foisted unilateral agreements
and form promissory notes from the UK Get Out
Of Debt Free website 2) denying conventional legal
authority with a Freeman-on-the-Land “Notice of
Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right ”
3) (purportedly) proving a mortgage contract was
fraudulent with proofreading that applied unorthodox
grammar, and a “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT”
judgment 4) a brief interlude as a CERI “minister ” 5)
claiming he owed no debts because banks create money
from thin air and 6) employing Sovereign Citizen
theories taught by Carl (Karl) Lentz that, as “an idiot
at your court,” Knutson was outside court authority
(Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858 Knutson (Re), 2018
ABQB 1050).
Another example of this ideological flexibility is British
Columbia pseudolaw litigant Kazimierz Chester
Crischuk. Crischuk started as a follower of US Sovereign
Citizen guru David Wynn Miller (CIBC v Chesney,
2001 BCSC 625), who taught that documents only have
legal effect when documents adhere to Miller’s highly
unorthodox “Quantum Syntax Grammar” (Knutson
(Re), 2018 ABQB 858, paras. 16-26 McRoberts, 2019,
pp. 638-639 Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1061-1062). Next,
Crischuk was a CERI affiliate (“Christian ministers,”
2009 Crischuk, n.d. R v Crischuk, 2007 BCPC
470, para. 11), and, finally, Crischuk claimed he is
immune to income tax obligations because his true
identity is “Mythlim-Axkw of the Wilps-Daaxan ...a
Sovereign North-American-Indian” (The Law Society
of British Columbia v Crischuk, 2017 BCSC 531 R v
Crischuk, 2010 BCCA 391 R v Crischuk, 2010 BCSC
716). Succinctly, this reoccurring pattern supports
opportunism, not genuine religious belief. The 2016 to
2022 litigation activities of David Williams, reviewed
in Parts IV(F) and IV(H) below, provide a yet further
illustration of this “religious opportunism,” rather than
devout CERI King James Bible literalist belief.
Second, the plain language of key foundational
sources on which CERI’s theories rely demonstrate
CERI theories are blatantly and obviously false. The
definition of “person” in Black’s Law Dictionary is a
glaring example. CERI misquotes the definition of
“artificial person” for the legal definition of “person,”
thus ignoring that Black’s Law Dictionary (Garner,
2019) actually disproves the CERI claim that
“person” in a legal context means only governments,
corporations, or other non-human entities that have
legal status (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 115-
118). In short, those who subscribe to CERI theory
can only be credible claimants if they do not read the
materials that they rely upon.
A third indication is the language used by CERI affiliates
raises a strong inference that their pseudolegal antics
are all a game. They are knowingly (metaphorically)
thumbing their noses at mainstream authority
by adopting preposterous and absurd “religious”
language and rules. For example, CERI affiliates drive
“Ecclesiastical Pursuit Chariots,” religious motor
vehicles that are purportedly exempt from state
and court regulation (Blais, 2012 Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, para. 186). As previously indicated,
CERI argues text on tombstones proves a legal rule.
Interaction with government and being subject to
statute is not merely rejected as prohibited. Instead,
CERI theory uses exaggerated “hellfire and brimstone”
language: the prohibited interaction is “necrophilia”
and “necromancy” (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652,
paras. 36, 112-113, 121, 133), or “intercourse with a
dead prostitute.” This last phrase is one of Belanger’s
favorite expressions. While debating members of the
Quatloos! anti-pseudolaw skeptic group, Belanger
colorfully described this prohibited interaction as
being “into bed with a festering old and quite dead

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 71
prostitute” (cudgel, 2014). Another similar example
is that Belanger wrote Queen Elizabeth II, seeking
appointment as her “Judicial Examiner Delegate
International (JEDI),” who would validate oaths of
office to the Crown (Belanger, 2002).
Beyond these issues, there are many instances where
CERI’s affiliates are remarkably selective about being
damned to hell for engaging in “necrophilia” with
“dead prostitutes.” In Potvin (Re) (2018 ABQB 652,
paras. 130-131), Justice Thomas noted the CERI
affiliate “minister” on one hand refused any interaction
with state actors or legislation on religious grounds,
but had also registered copyright in his own name with
the federal government Canadian Intellectual Property
Office. After that, Potvin in his Federal Courts litigation
proclaimed he was a devout CERI adherent, but, in
other documents, claimed title over his Strawman, the
“ALFRED GERARD POTVIN Living Estate Trust,”
despite that being prohibited “necrophilia” according
to CERI orthodoxy and Potvin himself (Potvin (Re),
2019 ABQB 785 Potvin (Re), 2019 ABQB 802).
The very same is true for Belanger, personally. Though
Belanger categorically rejects any affiliation with
government “dead prostitutes,” Belanger, nevertheless,
in videos directed to then provincial Minister of
Human Services Heather Klimchuk, and an Alberta
government lawyer, demanded disability payments
under the Alberta government’s Assured Income for
the Severely Handicapped program (Paraclete, 2015b).
In circumstances such as this, Matthew 7:5 seems
appropriate: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam
out of thine own eye and then shalt thou see clearly to
cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Holy Bible
King James Version, 1611).
As previously explained, James 2:9 is the keystone to
CERI King James Bible theory: “but if ye have respect
to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the
law as transgressors.” “Persons” here allegedly means
corporations, governments, courts, the Strawman, and
other non-flesh and blood things. There are at least two
issues with CERI’s interpretation of this passage.
The first might be called an “originalism” (Solum,
2013) question, where the meaning of text is fixed by
what words meant to their historical authors. Belanger
teaches that when the authors of the King James Bible
chose the word “person,” they consciously chose
that word to indicate “artificial persons,” including
government. The problem is, when the King James
Bible was published in 1611, the concept of “artificial
persons” had not yet entered into English law to
represent government.
In 1611, government was centered on the monarch.
Only after the defeat of Charles I during the English
Civil War (1642-1651) did Parliament (a not-
human) become the chief law-making authority for
England, and, subsequently, the UK (Ashley, 1992).
The monarchy was abolished after the execution of
Charles I in 1649. England was a republic until the
1660 “restoration.” After that point England operated
as a constitutional monarchy, where lawmaking rested
solely with a not-human: Parliament.
Whatever the authors of the King James Bible meant
by “person,” that meaning was not what in modern law
is called a “government.” If nothing else, failure to “be
a respecter” of King James I and accept his authority
would plausibly have drastic, if not fatal, results.
A second fundamental issue with the CERI
interpretation of James 2:9 is when read in the context
of James 2 as a whole, “respect to persons” does not
relate to physical humans vs immaterial “persons,”
but, instead, flesh-and-blood humans with different
personal aspects. James 2:2-3 contrasts a wealthy man
“with a gold ring, in goodly apparel,” versus a “poor
man in vile raiment,” and describes seating the former
“in a good place,” while the poor man is relegated to
sitting under a footstool. James 2:4-8 decries this
distinction and different treatment of the rich and
poor, as the latter are “heirs to the kingdom.” To judge
a human in this manner is “partial” and makes one
a “[judge] of evil thoughts.” Thus, James 2, read as a
whole, has nothing to do with immaterial identities,
masks, or alternative legal roles, but guides the reader
to not judge an individual by their person: their
appearance and social status. James 2:14-25 further
emphasizes both a human’s faith and deeds are what
merit salvation. Again, this passage is about conduct of
humans, not some immaterial and not flesh-and-blood
legal entity.
The human-centered focus of James 2 is made clear
in more modern Bible versions, such as The New