International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 76
only response was a short irregular pseudolaw email
(Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050, para. 7). Knutson’s
repeated abusive litigation and use of Strawman
arguments created a presumption Knutson litigated
in bad faith (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858, paras.
55, 58, 86). Knutson was immediately made subject to
comprehensive court access gatekeeping, and required
to retain a lawyer to take certain litigation steps because
of Knutson’s harassing attempts to impose vigilante
pseudolaw court judgments and lay Criminal Code
charges (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050, paras. 23-26).
That effectively ended Knutson’s potential for additional
abusive activity in Alberta Courts. Knutson himself as
much as acknowledged that, when in a subsequent
letter to the judge who conducted the vexatious litigant
process, Knutson threatened to initiate new proceedings
in the Federal Court, or “a Court of Claims outside
Canada” (Knutson (Re), 2019). Knutson’s threats were
obviously meaningless, since neither the US Court of
Claims (abolished 1982), or the UK Court of Claims
that “hear[s] and determine[s] Claims of Services”
during Coronation proceedings, seems a plausible
forum to provide Knutson with any meaningful
remedy. Knutson subsequently was refused permission
to initiate further pseudolaw litigation (Knutson (Re),
2021 ABQB 367), and Knutson was stripped of his
real estate agent certification during a disciplinary
process where Knutson employed pseudolaw tactics of
“Judge :David-Wynn: Miller” of the fictitious vigilante
“:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” (Knutson (Re), 2022
ABRECA 82).
No documentary link between Knutson and Belanger
has been identified, which is perhaps unsurprising,
since Knutson’s affiliation with CERI was short-lived.
That said, considering both Knutson and Belanger
reside in the same geographic location, and given
CERI’s small membership, Belanger was very likely
involved during Knutson’s brief stint as a King James
Bible literalist “minister.”
E. Alfred Gerald Potvin Debt and Foreclosure Actions
-Royal Bank of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of
Queen’s Bench Action No. 1501 07600, Royal Bank
of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Action No. 1701 01667, Potvin v Royal Bank of
Canada, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No.
1701 13997 Potvin (Re), Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench Action No. 1801 12765
Starting in 2015, Alfred Gerald Potvin, a Calgary-area
jazz pianist, was the target of debt and foreclosure
proceedings in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652). Potvin responded
with a diverse array of pseudolaw documents. None
affected or delayed the result (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB
652, paras. 13-37). The CERI phase of Potvin’s Alberta
litigation activities occurred late during the foreclosure
when Potvin submitted an “Asseveration” that included
unremarkable CERI Strawman Theory motifs (Potvin
(Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 36-37). Potvin’s residence
was sold by a court-mediated process, and law
enforcement was authorized to remove Potvin and his
family (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652).
During the foreclosure process Potvin responded with
a 2017 counterattack lawsuit that alleged there was no
mortgage debt, and that used typical Freeman-on-the-
Land type documents. That action was struck out and
Potvin was ordered to pay the bank’s legal expenses
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 38-40). Prior
to the final foreclosure and sale, Potvin in 2018 filed
several lawsuits in the Federal Court of Canada. These,
and a subsequent appeal, are reviewed below in Part
IV(G).
In late 2018, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench began
proceedings on its own motion and under its inherent
jurisdiction to evaluate whether Potvin should be
subject to prospective court access gatekeeping to
manage Potvin’s abusive litigation activities. The first
decision, issued October 7, 2018, reviewed Potvin’s
litigation misconduct in the Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench and Federal Court, conducted a detailed rebuttal
of CERI pseudolaw theory, and imposed interim court
access gatekeeping on Potvin’s court activities (Potvin
(Re), 2018 ABQB 652).
Potvin did not submit arguments rebutting the abusive
character of his litigation. He was therefore made
only response was a short irregular pseudolaw email
(Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050, para. 7). Knutson’s
repeated abusive litigation and use of Strawman
arguments created a presumption Knutson litigated
in bad faith (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858, paras.
55, 58, 86). Knutson was immediately made subject to
comprehensive court access gatekeeping, and required
to retain a lawyer to take certain litigation steps because
of Knutson’s harassing attempts to impose vigilante
pseudolaw court judgments and lay Criminal Code
charges (Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050, paras. 23-26).
That effectively ended Knutson’s potential for additional
abusive activity in Alberta Courts. Knutson himself as
much as acknowledged that, when in a subsequent
letter to the judge who conducted the vexatious litigant
process, Knutson threatened to initiate new proceedings
in the Federal Court, or “a Court of Claims outside
Canada” (Knutson (Re), 2019). Knutson’s threats were
obviously meaningless, since neither the US Court of
Claims (abolished 1982), or the UK Court of Claims
that “hear[s] and determine[s] Claims of Services”
during Coronation proceedings, seems a plausible
forum to provide Knutson with any meaningful
remedy. Knutson subsequently was refused permission
to initiate further pseudolaw litigation (Knutson (Re),
2021 ABQB 367), and Knutson was stripped of his
real estate agent certification during a disciplinary
process where Knutson employed pseudolaw tactics of
“Judge :David-Wynn: Miller” of the fictitious vigilante
“:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” (Knutson (Re), 2022
ABRECA 82).
No documentary link between Knutson and Belanger
has been identified, which is perhaps unsurprising,
since Knutson’s affiliation with CERI was short-lived.
That said, considering both Knutson and Belanger
reside in the same geographic location, and given
CERI’s small membership, Belanger was very likely
involved during Knutson’s brief stint as a King James
Bible literalist “minister.”
E. Alfred Gerald Potvin Debt and Foreclosure Actions
-Royal Bank of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of
Queen’s Bench Action No. 1501 07600, Royal Bank
of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Action No. 1701 01667, Potvin v Royal Bank of
Canada, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No.
1701 13997 Potvin (Re), Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench Action No. 1801 12765
Starting in 2015, Alfred Gerald Potvin, a Calgary-area
jazz pianist, was the target of debt and foreclosure
proceedings in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652). Potvin responded
with a diverse array of pseudolaw documents. None
affected or delayed the result (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB
652, paras. 13-37). The CERI phase of Potvin’s Alberta
litigation activities occurred late during the foreclosure
when Potvin submitted an “Asseveration” that included
unremarkable CERI Strawman Theory motifs (Potvin
(Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 36-37). Potvin’s residence
was sold by a court-mediated process, and law
enforcement was authorized to remove Potvin and his
family (Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652).
During the foreclosure process Potvin responded with
a 2017 counterattack lawsuit that alleged there was no
mortgage debt, and that used typical Freeman-on-the-
Land type documents. That action was struck out and
Potvin was ordered to pay the bank’s legal expenses
(Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, paras. 38-40). Prior
to the final foreclosure and sale, Potvin in 2018 filed
several lawsuits in the Federal Court of Canada. These,
and a subsequent appeal, are reviewed below in Part
IV(G).
In late 2018, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench began
proceedings on its own motion and under its inherent
jurisdiction to evaluate whether Potvin should be
subject to prospective court access gatekeeping to
manage Potvin’s abusive litigation activities. The first
decision, issued October 7, 2018, reviewed Potvin’s
litigation misconduct in the Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench and Federal Court, conducted a detailed rebuttal
of CERI pseudolaw theory, and imposed interim court
access gatekeeping on Potvin’s court activities (Potvin
(Re), 2018 ABQB 652).
Potvin did not submit arguments rebutting the abusive
character of his litigation. He was therefore made
