International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 78
accommodate” his CERI Strawman claims, attempts
to collect on imaginary “bonds,” and, then, ultimately,
the Federal Court T-1200-18 lawsuit. Williams sued
practically everyone with whom he had corresponded
during his attempts to obtain and enforce his CERI
“private agreements.”
Unsurprisingly, the defendants moved to strike the
action. Rather than respond to those materials,
Williams demanded the Federal Court remove all
documents filed by the defendants, claiming those
were not the “private men and women” he had sued in
“their private capacity.” That was yet another Strawman
strategy. Williams refused to accept the defendants’
lawyers were valid representatives (Williams v Payette,
2018b Williams v Payette, 2019 FC 800, paras. 37-40),
and also introduced Belanger as a purported “expert
witness” (Williams v Payette, 2019a).
Justice Heneghan struck out the T-1200-18 action with
written reasons on June 11, 2019 (Williams v Payette,
2019 FC 800). She confirmed the defects identified by
the defendants, including that there were no allegations
against many named defendants, other allegations
were unsupported or speculative, the lawsuit was a
pseudolaw proceeding, and, on that basis, vexatious
(Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070, paras. 6-8 Williams
v Payette, 2019 FC 800, paras. 51-81). Williams appears
to have sought reconsideration of Justice Heneghan’s
decision, but Prothonotary Tabib rejected that filing as
out of time (Williams v Payette, 2019b).
This litigation is a further example where a transient
CERI affiliate switched between alternative pseudolaw
schemes. Terminating this lawsuit was a lengthy process,
but both the initial claims and the various pseudolaw
and re-litigation strategies employed by Belanger and
Williams were entirely ineffective. The Court and
defendants were not obliged to take any substantive
steps. Belanger was introduced as a purported expert,
but entirely failed in that role. However, in the interim,
Williams launched another Federal Court lawsuit, see
Part IV(H), below.
G. Alfred Gerald Potvin -Federal Court Lawsuits
Against Judges, Court, and Government Personnel
Much like the Volks, Potvin followed up his Alberta
foreclosure litigation by forum shopping to the Federal
Court of Canada, where Potvin attempted to counter-
attack against Alberta court and government actors.
That counter-attack led to three lawsuits and an appeal.
Belanger was directly involved.
1. Potvin v Prowse, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. T-83-18
Potvin’s first Federal Court action, filed on January
15, 2018, was a retaliatory lawsuit and collateral attack
on his Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench foreclosure
proceedings (see Part IV(E)). Potvin sued the four
Court decision-makers who were involved in those
actions, the CEO of the lending bank, a lawyer, and
a real estate agent. Potvin demanded $5.9 million for
pain and suffering, the “cost of refusing my 5 attempts
at lawful payment” (Potvin v Prowse, 2018a), i.e.,
Potvin’s worthless promissory note debt elimination
schemes. Potvin self-identified as a “minister of Christ,”
advanced fractional banking fraud pseudolaw theories,
and demanded accommodation of his religious beliefs,
the typical CERI Strawman Theory argument that
Potvin cannot be a “respecter of persons” because that
“is necromancy, and places me in Danger of Hellfire”
(Potvin v Prowse, 2018a Potvin v Prowse, 2018c).
The defendants applied to have Potvin’s action struck
as an abusive pseudolaw proceeding. Potvin attempted
to avoid that motion by refusing to accept documents
left at his address (Potvin v Prowse, 2018b). Belanger
personally appeared and attempted to represent Potvin
at the application to strike hearing, which was denied
(Potvin v Prowse, 2018c).
After that, Potvin attempted to file an amended
statement of claim and request to admit facts, however
these documents were intercepted by the Federal Court
Registry and denied filing by Prothonotary Ring,
pending the outcome of the striking out applications
(Potvin v Prowse, 2018d). The T-83-18 action was
struck out (Potvin v Prowse (6 July 2018), Calgary T-83-
18 (FC)). Justice McVeigh observed Potvin’s lawsuit
was in retaliation for his failure in the Alberta courts,
based on pseudolaw strategies, “breaches the rules of
pleadings in every respect,” and was “nonsensical and
fundamentally vexatious.” (Potvin v Prowse (6 July
2018), Calgary T-83-18 (FC)). Potvin was ordered to
pay lump sum costs.
accommodate” his CERI Strawman claims, attempts
to collect on imaginary “bonds,” and, then, ultimately,
the Federal Court T-1200-18 lawsuit. Williams sued
practically everyone with whom he had corresponded
during his attempts to obtain and enforce his CERI
“private agreements.”
Unsurprisingly, the defendants moved to strike the
action. Rather than respond to those materials,
Williams demanded the Federal Court remove all
documents filed by the defendants, claiming those
were not the “private men and women” he had sued in
“their private capacity.” That was yet another Strawman
strategy. Williams refused to accept the defendants’
lawyers were valid representatives (Williams v Payette,
2018b Williams v Payette, 2019 FC 800, paras. 37-40),
and also introduced Belanger as a purported “expert
witness” (Williams v Payette, 2019a).
Justice Heneghan struck out the T-1200-18 action with
written reasons on June 11, 2019 (Williams v Payette,
2019 FC 800). She confirmed the defects identified by
the defendants, including that there were no allegations
against many named defendants, other allegations
were unsupported or speculative, the lawsuit was a
pseudolaw proceeding, and, on that basis, vexatious
(Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070, paras. 6-8 Williams
v Payette, 2019 FC 800, paras. 51-81). Williams appears
to have sought reconsideration of Justice Heneghan’s
decision, but Prothonotary Tabib rejected that filing as
out of time (Williams v Payette, 2019b).
This litigation is a further example where a transient
CERI affiliate switched between alternative pseudolaw
schemes. Terminating this lawsuit was a lengthy process,
but both the initial claims and the various pseudolaw
and re-litigation strategies employed by Belanger and
Williams were entirely ineffective. The Court and
defendants were not obliged to take any substantive
steps. Belanger was introduced as a purported expert,
but entirely failed in that role. However, in the interim,
Williams launched another Federal Court lawsuit, see
Part IV(H), below.
G. Alfred Gerald Potvin -Federal Court Lawsuits
Against Judges, Court, and Government Personnel
Much like the Volks, Potvin followed up his Alberta
foreclosure litigation by forum shopping to the Federal
Court of Canada, where Potvin attempted to counter-
attack against Alberta court and government actors.
That counter-attack led to three lawsuits and an appeal.
Belanger was directly involved.
1. Potvin v Prowse, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. T-83-18
Potvin’s first Federal Court action, filed on January
15, 2018, was a retaliatory lawsuit and collateral attack
on his Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench foreclosure
proceedings (see Part IV(E)). Potvin sued the four
Court decision-makers who were involved in those
actions, the CEO of the lending bank, a lawyer, and
a real estate agent. Potvin demanded $5.9 million for
pain and suffering, the “cost of refusing my 5 attempts
at lawful payment” (Potvin v Prowse, 2018a), i.e.,
Potvin’s worthless promissory note debt elimination
schemes. Potvin self-identified as a “minister of Christ,”
advanced fractional banking fraud pseudolaw theories,
and demanded accommodation of his religious beliefs,
the typical CERI Strawman Theory argument that
Potvin cannot be a “respecter of persons” because that
“is necromancy, and places me in Danger of Hellfire”
(Potvin v Prowse, 2018a Potvin v Prowse, 2018c).
The defendants applied to have Potvin’s action struck
as an abusive pseudolaw proceeding. Potvin attempted
to avoid that motion by refusing to accept documents
left at his address (Potvin v Prowse, 2018b). Belanger
personally appeared and attempted to represent Potvin
at the application to strike hearing, which was denied
(Potvin v Prowse, 2018c).
After that, Potvin attempted to file an amended
statement of claim and request to admit facts, however
these documents were intercepted by the Federal Court
Registry and denied filing by Prothonotary Ring,
pending the outcome of the striking out applications
(Potvin v Prowse, 2018d). The T-83-18 action was
struck out (Potvin v Prowse (6 July 2018), Calgary T-83-
18 (FC)). Justice McVeigh observed Potvin’s lawsuit
was in retaliation for his failure in the Alberta courts,
based on pseudolaw strategies, “breaches the rules of
pleadings in every respect,” and was “nonsensical and
fundamentally vexatious.” (Potvin v Prowse (6 July
2018), Calgary T-83-18 (FC)). Potvin was ordered to
pay lump sum costs.
