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
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
