International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 74
obtain legally valid government identification breaches
his religious beliefs (Windsor v Horner, 2012b).
One-month later then Prothonotary Lafrenière
dismissed Belanger’s application without personal
appearance on the basis Belanger’s financial claims
were nothing more than bald statements, and did
not establish Belanger was unable to pay court filing
fees (Windsor v Horner, 2012c). Belanger’s litigation
incompetence effectively ended this lawsuit before it
even began.
Belanger subsequently published a “Plenary Statement
Of claim Tort of Intimidation,” that probably was
the Federal Court lawsuit he had intended to file for
free (Belanger, n.d.). In this difficult to understand
document, Belanger purported to act as the “proxy” for
Queen Elizabeth II, and demanded $1 million, each,
from a wide variety of government officials, almost every
judge and master of the Alberta trial courts, Crown
prosecutors, and law enforcement and correctional
service officers for their failure to recognize and be
bound by CERI pseudolegal theory. In Meads v Meads
(2012 ABQB 571, para 187), Associate Chief Justice
Rooke comments that CERI materials are “unusually
haphazard, even by [pseudolaw] documentary
materials standards.” Belanger’s “Plenary Statement” is
a model example. If the “Plenary Statement” document
had been successfully filed in Federal Court, that
document would have inevitably been struck out as an
abuse of court processes.
Here Belanger was operating solo. No evidence
implicates Belanger involving others in this lawsuit.
Belanger is obviously targeting those he considers
wrongdoers, and, in an entirely inept manner,
attempted to use court processes to his advantage. In
this instance, Belanger never passed the starting gate.
The persons he intended to sue were never even aware
this litigation occurred.
C. Carol and Roderick Volk Foreclosure Proceedings
-IHSBC Bank Canada v Volk, British Columbia
Supreme Court Docket No. Victoria 13 3743, Minister
Carol Mary Helen v Maia, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. T-1898-14, Minister Carol Mary Helen v
Maia,FederalCourtofCanadaDocketNo.T-1942-14
The next example of Belanger’s litigation operations
has two phases. In the first, Belanger parachuted into
an existing foreclosure lawsuit, purporting to represent
a married couple, Carol and Roderick Volk. Once
established in that role, Belanger expanded his activity
to include counter-attack litigation in Federal Court.
Prior to adopting CERI strategies, the Volks had already
(on July 13, 2013) deployed “money-for-nothing”
debt elimination concepts promoted by a separate
US-based pseudolaw movement to avoid outstanding
mortgage debts on their Victoria, British Columbia
home. Carol Volk’s illustrative reaction to the bank’s
negative response to this step is recorded in a five-hour
Skype transcript (Riger, 2013) with other members of
her original pseudolaw community, the One People’s
Public Trust (Barrows, 2021 Muniesa, 2022). That
transcript reveals much about the mindsets of these
pseudolaw adherents.
Two months later, the lender applied for foreclosure
in the British Columbia Supreme Court (HSBC Bank
Canada v Volk, 2013a). The Volks initially employed
One People’s Public Trust pseudolegal arguments that
purportedly paid mortgage debts by “courtesy notices”
(HSBC Bank Canada v Volk, 2013b HSBC Bank
Canada v Volk, 2014a). Naturally, that did not work.
As the foreclosure entered its final phases one year
later, the Volks switched pseudolaw gurus. Belanger
physically relocated to Victoria to direct a CERI-
based pseudolaw response to the bank. Belanger was
living in a recreational vehicle parked outside the
Volks’ residence, and, in contemporaneous videos,
confronted process servers working for the bank. In July
and August 2014, Belanger followed his usual pattern
of documentary (“Church ministers,” 2014) and video
(Paraclete, 2014c Paraclete, 2014d Paraclete, 2014e
Paraclete, 2014f Paraclete, 2014g Paraclete, 2014h
Paraclete, 2014i) “notices” that purportedly eliminated
any obligation by the two new CERI “ministers” to
the bank, and unilaterally imposed counterattack
sanctions on many targets, included British Columbia
court judges and personnel, the bank and its officers,
the bank’s lawyers, the British Columbia Real Estate
Board, and the British Columbia government and its
officials.
Naturally, these meaningless declarations had no
effect, and, on September 16, 2014, the Court ordered

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 75
the Volks vacate the residence by September 30, 2014,
or they would be removed with police assistance
(HSBC Bank Canada v Volk, 2014b). In the period
immediately before the eviction concluded, Belanger
and the Volks took a further litigation step, that has
now become a commonplace CERI strategy. When
faced with unfavorable litigation results in a provincial
jurisdiction, these CERI members launched a collateral
counter-attack in the Federal Court of Canada.
The Volks filed two related statements of claim on
September 2 and September 10, 2014 (Minister Carol
Mary Helen v Maia, 2014a Minister Carol Mary Helen
v Maia, 2014b). The September 10 statement of claim
was originally intended to be an amended statement of
claim in the initial action.
The initial lawsuit named two bank executives, the
British Columbia Supreme Court Chief Justice, and
a Provincial Court Master as defendants. The latter
lawsuit added three additional defendants, all lawyers.
“[H]ead minister” Belanger was granted “full authority
to speak on behalf of us.” The statement of claim
advanced standard CERI arguments: 1) per James
2:9, and as true King James Bible believers, the Volks
cannot respect persons 2) the Volks have been subject
to fraud and usury and 3) the defendants already
admitted their guilt by not responding appropriately
to the YouTube video and documentary “notices.”
The Volks demanded $7,510,000 and “their sanctuary
deregistered with the Land Titles Office.”
The Federal Court lawsuits’ defendants immediately
moved to strike the Volks’ actions. On October 9, 2014,
the Volks attempted to discontinue the lawsuits, but
Prothonotary Lafrenière directed those discontinuances
not be filed until the motions to strike were evaluated
(Minister Carol Mary Helen v Maia, 2014c Minister
Carol Mary Helen v Maia, 2014d). Justice Rennie
on November 4, 2014 struck out the Volks’ litigation
without personal appearances and awarded lump sum
costs penalties against the Volks. The Volks’ Federal
Court lawsuits were collateral attacks, outside the
Court’s jurisdiction, and applied abusive pseudolaw
strategies (Minister Carol Mary Helen v Maia, 2014e
Minister Carol Mary Helen v Maia, 2014f). The Volks’
residence was sold the following March (HSBC Bank
Canada v Volk, 2015). After that, Belanger posted a
video where he denounced the Volks as faithless. They
gave up and sabotaged Belanger’s processes by not
pursuing their Strawman Theory complaints at the
Federal Court. Instead, the Volks had “bowed to the
false god ...ignored what Christ said, and submitted
...to a commercial contract” (Paraclete, 2015a).
Unsurprisingly, Belanger offered no explanation for
why his techniques failed to block the foreclosure.
The Federal Court of Canada litigation was not the end
of the Volks’ pseudolaw activities. They subsequently
registered their names on the “Copyright-NAME”
website, that published Strawman Theory notices that
any use of their names would result in a $1.5 million
penalty (“Public Notice,” n.d. a “Public Notice,” n.d.
b).
D. James Knutson Debt and Foreclosure Litigation
-Bank of Nova Scotia v Knutson, Alberta Court
of Queen’s Bench Docket No. 1603 21486, MCAP
Service Corporation v Knutson, Alberta Court of
Queen’s Bench Docket No. 1603 18699, Capital One
Bank (Canada Branch) v Knutson, Alberta Court of
Queen’s Bench Docket No. 1803 08102, Knutson (Re),
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No. 1803
20494
Between 2016-2018, Edmonton area resident James
Kenneth Knutson employed a sequence of pseudolegal
schemes in his futile attempts to evade credit card
debts and home foreclosure (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB
858). At one point during this progression, Knutson
adopted CERI pseudolaw litigation concepts. Knutson
attempted to re-open a credit card default judgment,
but that was dismissed by the Court as late and futile
(Knutson(Re),2018ABQB858,paras.7-13).Pseudolaw
strategies deployed during the foreclosure were equally
ineffectual (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858, paras. 14-
29). Knutson’s appeal of the foreclosure order, which
relied on a “judgment” of a fictional US vigilante
pseudolaw court, was dismissed Knutson was ordered
to vacate (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858, para. 26).
Knutson then adopted CERI pseudolaw to challenge
the court-ordered sale, without effect (Knutson (Re),
2018 ABQB 858, paras. 28-29).
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench then switched
to active management of Knutson, when Knutson
responded to a third debt collection action with a
non-CERI pseudolaw strategy. When Knutson was
instructed to explain his bad conduct, Knutson’s