International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 72
Revised Standard Version Bible (1999), which is the
Bible edition preferred by the Church of England
(“Supplementary Material,” n.d.):
You do well if you really fulfil the royal law
according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your
neighbour as yourself.’ But if you show
partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by
the law as transgressors.
Together, these observations imply that CERI’s
members, including Belanger, are not honest when
they frame pseudolaw as purportedly sincere and
honest religious beliefs. Succinctly, CERI is a fake
church. This situation is not unprecedented in the
pseudolaw world, particularly as a mechanism to evade
income tax (e.g., In re Universal Life Church, Inc., 128
F. 3d 1294, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997). The
reason why CERI robes itself as a Christian institution
is patently obvious. No-one took Belanger and his
fellow “Reformed Druids” seriously, so Belanger and
his followers have adopted a more plausible religious
mask: as fanatical King James Bible literalists.
IV. CERI Litigation Activity
CERI is first and foremost a litigation-centered
organization. Nothing indicates CERI and its members
engage in any conventional religious activities, such as
group worship, teaching of religious doctrine, or focus
on anything outside immediate physical existence and
activity. When Belanger and his followers conduct
publicly accessible dialogue, the subjects of discussion
are: 1) how they perceive their rights and activities
are infringed upon by government actors, and 2)
legal “religious” mechanisms to sabotage, disrupt, and
supersede state authority. Despite its name, CERI is not
a religious community or organization, but, instead,
CERI is a litigation entity. CERI is not a religious cult.
CERI is a legal cult, organized around one person-
-Belanger--and that pretends to be a religion because
of the special privileged, if not taboo, status religious
belief has in Canadian law and popular society.
A “war of laws,” is the central organizing rationale of
pseudolaw activity (Netolitzky, 2021). One learns
about and deploys a superior law, which then grants
the person special and unique authority and privileges.
While not exclusively fought in the courts, that is a
natural location where pseudolaw concepts will come
into conflict with “the real law,” and be adjudicated by
legal authorities: judges.
However, as previously noted, pseudolaw leaders usually
avoid interacting with courts, because pseudolaw
theories are inevitably rejected. Sophisticated
pseudolaw leaders therefore either conceal their
court and litigation activities, or simply leave that to
their followers. Failure can then be rejected and/or
obscured the guru leader complains students clearly
had not learned their lessons properly, and used flawed
magical incantations and artifacts (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, para. 80).
Interestingly, Belanger is an exception to this pattern.
Instead, he is frequently front-and-center in CERI
litigation. Belanger is thus therefore directly implicated
and involved when CERI’s theories have failed, time
and time again. Belanger’s pattern of direct involvement
also means his followers witness Belanger’s legal magic
is ineffective. That factor also likely partially explains
why CERI’s follower base is so often transient. They
observe first-hand that CERI’s high prophet is a fraud.
A closer examination of how CERI, CERI adherents,
and Belanger operates demonstrates CERI’s litigation-
focused orientation, and Belanger’s central role.
What follows is a generally chronological survey of
21 Canadian legal proceedings, dating from 2009 to
the present, where CERI’s ideas were deployed and
rejected.
A. Haig v Haig, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Docket No. 4803 136428 -Abusive Litigation
Representation
In 2009-2010, Belanger attempted to interfere in an
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench divorce proceeding,
purportedly as the representative of Thomas Haig, an
80-year-old divorcing husband. Haig had commenced
the action in 2005 (Haig v Haig, 2005). The divorce was
granted in 2007 (Haig v Haig, 2007). The remaining
dispute dragged out. Mr. Haig was a difficult litigant
he was represented by and fired three different lawyers
(Haig v Haig, 2008a Haig v Haig, 2008b Haig v Haig,
2009a). By 2009-2010, only two issues remained:
spousal support and a residual matrimonial property
division.
Revised Standard Version Bible (1999), which is the
Bible edition preferred by the Church of England
(“Supplementary Material,” n.d.):
You do well if you really fulfil the royal law
according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your
neighbour as yourself.’ But if you show
partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by
the law as transgressors.
Together, these observations imply that CERI’s
members, including Belanger, are not honest when
they frame pseudolaw as purportedly sincere and
honest religious beliefs. Succinctly, CERI is a fake
church. This situation is not unprecedented in the
pseudolaw world, particularly as a mechanism to evade
income tax (e.g., In re Universal Life Church, Inc., 128
F. 3d 1294, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997). The
reason why CERI robes itself as a Christian institution
is patently obvious. No-one took Belanger and his
fellow “Reformed Druids” seriously, so Belanger and
his followers have adopted a more plausible religious
mask: as fanatical King James Bible literalists.
IV. CERI Litigation Activity
CERI is first and foremost a litigation-centered
organization. Nothing indicates CERI and its members
engage in any conventional religious activities, such as
group worship, teaching of religious doctrine, or focus
on anything outside immediate physical existence and
activity. When Belanger and his followers conduct
publicly accessible dialogue, the subjects of discussion
are: 1) how they perceive their rights and activities
are infringed upon by government actors, and 2)
legal “religious” mechanisms to sabotage, disrupt, and
supersede state authority. Despite its name, CERI is not
a religious community or organization, but, instead,
CERI is a litigation entity. CERI is not a religious cult.
CERI is a legal cult, organized around one person-
-Belanger--and that pretends to be a religion because
of the special privileged, if not taboo, status religious
belief has in Canadian law and popular society.
A “war of laws,” is the central organizing rationale of
pseudolaw activity (Netolitzky, 2021). One learns
about and deploys a superior law, which then grants
the person special and unique authority and privileges.
While not exclusively fought in the courts, that is a
natural location where pseudolaw concepts will come
into conflict with “the real law,” and be adjudicated by
legal authorities: judges.
However, as previously noted, pseudolaw leaders usually
avoid interacting with courts, because pseudolaw
theories are inevitably rejected. Sophisticated
pseudolaw leaders therefore either conceal their
court and litigation activities, or simply leave that to
their followers. Failure can then be rejected and/or
obscured the guru leader complains students clearly
had not learned their lessons properly, and used flawed
magical incantations and artifacts (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, para. 80).
Interestingly, Belanger is an exception to this pattern.
Instead, he is frequently front-and-center in CERI
litigation. Belanger is thus therefore directly implicated
and involved when CERI’s theories have failed, time
and time again. Belanger’s pattern of direct involvement
also means his followers witness Belanger’s legal magic
is ineffective. That factor also likely partially explains
why CERI’s follower base is so often transient. They
observe first-hand that CERI’s high prophet is a fraud.
A closer examination of how CERI, CERI adherents,
and Belanger operates demonstrates CERI’s litigation-
focused orientation, and Belanger’s central role.
What follows is a generally chronological survey of
21 Canadian legal proceedings, dating from 2009 to
the present, where CERI’s ideas were deployed and
rejected.
A. Haig v Haig, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Docket No. 4803 136428 -Abusive Litigation
Representation
In 2009-2010, Belanger attempted to interfere in an
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench divorce proceeding,
purportedly as the representative of Thomas Haig, an
80-year-old divorcing husband. Haig had commenced
the action in 2005 (Haig v Haig, 2005). The divorce was
granted in 2007 (Haig v Haig, 2007). The remaining
dispute dragged out. Mr. Haig was a difficult litigant
he was represented by and fired three different lawyers
(Haig v Haig, 2008a Haig v Haig, 2008b Haig v Haig,
2009a). By 2009-2010, only two issues remained:
spousal support and a residual matrimonial property
division.
