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
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
