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.

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 73
Belanger interfered in this matter via a CERI “Notice
of Agreement in Default Judgment,” dated September
22, 2009 (Haig v Haig, 2009b). This document claimed
Belanger represented Mr. Haig and that “through great
study and tedious research” Belanger had determined
that the opposing lawyer had sworn an incorrect oath
when admitted as a lawyer. Belanger made a Strawman
Theory claim that Criminal Code section 126 was
breached when Mr. Haig was (allegedly) illegally forced
to associate with his “all caps” “dead fictions of law,” i.e.,
the Strawman. The opposing lawyer purportedly had
seven days to rebut these conclusions. Failure meant
“unavoidable acceptance of private liability to Gordon
Haig for $7,500,000 dollars in damages.”
Belanger first appeared in Court at a Pretrial
Conference on November 5, 2009. Mr. Haig did not
attend. Belanger announced: “I’m amicus curiae on
behalf of Mr. Haig. I am a Christian minister officially
performing the functions of my calling here today.”
Justice Ross immediately rejected Belanger as a valid
legal representative, and summarily dismissed the oath
of office claim.
Belanger responded that courts and their judgments are
traded on international stock exchanges, and, prior to
leaving the Court, announced: “If this court proceeds
against Mr. Haig I intend to file a private information
on his behalf of criminal activity on the part of those
people who intend to violate his sanctity of his faith to
not participate in a fraud.” Subsequent irregular CERI
documents attempted to pre-emptively dictate the trial
outcome (Haig v Haig, 2010a).
Belanger appeared at the trial proper, again declaring
he was Mr. Haig’s representative (Haig v Haig, 2010b).
Belanger was immediately expelled. The Court largely
granted the relief sought by Ms. Haig (Haig v Haig,
2010c). The final pseudolaw documents on this court
file are correspondence to the “Governor General
and Command-in-Chief of Canada,” where Mr. Haig
agreed to satisfy the judgment against him, but only
if he within ten days received proof of various points
involving oaths and Strawman Theory. This appears to
have been Mr. Haig’s only involvement with CERI. Mr.
Haig died in 2014 (“Gordon Haig,” 2014).
Belanger’s in-court interference was dealt with in
a summary and effective manner. Belanger simply
was excluded as an interfering non-party non-
representative. Similarly, Belanger’s “notice” filings
were dismissed as ineffective and non-binding. The
materials Belanger employed were those he had used
over the previous decade. Belanger’s attempts to seize
control of the Haig divorce proceedings and frustrate
court processes were simply ignored. All these results
were entirely predictable, even to Belanger. He was
simply repeating prior failures.
Belanger’s intervention in the Haig divorce proceedings
illustrates Belanger’s disturbing predatory character.
Mr. Haig had by this point suffered several strokes,
and was institutionalized due to his ongoing care
requirements. Pseudolaw could never have benefited
this individual. Subsequently, Belanger published
videos of Mr. Haig and Belanger commenting on the
latter hearing (Paraclete, 2010b Paraclete, 2010c). Mr.
Haig’s diminished capacity is obvious.
B. Belanger Action vs Judges and Government Actors -
Elizabeth Mary Alexandra Windsor et al v The Private
Man Doug Horner et al, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. 12-T-44
CERI’s first identified Federal Court of Canada
appearance was an abortive 2012 action, that the
Federal Court registry recorded as Elizabeth Mary
Alexandra Windsor et al v The Private Man Doug Horner
et al, assigned Docket 12-T-44. Though not named as
a party, “minister Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger”
appears in the Federal Court docket records as the
“proposed Plaintiff.” This “dash colon” name structure
indicates Belanger is self-identifying as his “flesh and
blood,” rather than Strawman, aspect (Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571, paras. 206-212).
The 12-T-44 file was opened when the Federal Court
received an in forma pauperis preliminary motion
(Windsor v Horner, 2012a), an application to conduct
a legal proceeding without paying court filing fees.
This document lists hundreds of defendants: senior
politicians, government ministers, hundreds of
Alberta judges, and other government employees.
Oddly, Associate Chief Justice Rooke is omitted
from the otherwise apparently comprehensive list.
An accompanying “Asseveration (Affidavit)” makes
stereotypic CERI Strawman Theory complaints, and
says Belanger cannot work because a precondition to