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.

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 79
The Federal Court resolved this abusive lawsuit
in a highly efficient manner. Potvin’s attempted
countermeasures were neatly contained by an alert
Registry. Belanger’s in-person attempts to intrude and
interfere were intercepted. By any measure, Potvin
and Belanger’s litigation strategy was a total failure.
However, this lawsuit was not the end of Potvin’s
retaliatory litigation in the Federal Court of Canada.
2. Potvin v Calgary Police Service, Federal
Court of Canada Docket No. T-638-18
Three months after initiating the T-83-18 action,
Potvin filed a second Federal Court statement of claim
(Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018a), now targeting
the Calgary Police Service, Alberta Sheriffs, and several
debt enforcement agencies. Potvin demanded $5
million in punitive damages, and an order prohibiting
the defendants from interacting with Potvin, his family,
and the Potvins’ residence. Although the statement
of claim advanced typical CERI Strawman Theory
demands, the majority of the document focuses on
Sovereign Citizen fractional banking theory claims
that banks create money out of nothing, including a
copied blog posting (Legalman, 2014), discussing the
notorious “Credit River” case (Netolitzky, 2019, p.
1177). Credit River is a fascinating exception to the
near universal pattern that pseudolaw strategies are
rejected in court. Briefly, in Credit River, the judge
concluded banks do not lend money, but create money
via fractional banking processes, so “loans” actually
involve no debts. However, Credit River is meaningless,
since the reasoning and result were rejected and
declared a nullity, and Credit River was a US court
action, and, therefore, of no real relevance in Canada.
The Alberta Sheriffs’ motion to strike the statement
of claim (Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018b)
was granted without personal appearances (Potvin
v Calgary Police Service, 2018c). The Prothonotary
concluded no material facts were pled, and that the
Federal Court had no jurisdiction over this matter
(Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018c).
Similar to T-83-18, this matter was resolved in a
highly efficient manner, particularly since no court
appearances were required to evaluate and terminate
this abusive proceeding. Notably, Potvin here is
switching to a non-CERI strategy, another illustration
of how CERI affiliations are stereotypically transient.
That shift in pseudolaw litigation orientation would
also manifest in Potvin’s third Federal Court action.
3. Potvin v Rooke, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. T-1546-18, Potvin v Rooke, Federal
Court of Appeal Docket No. A-116-19
Potvin filed his next Federal Court statement of claim
on August 21, 2018, shortly after his first two lawsuits
were struck out (Potvin v Rooke, 2018a). Potvin now
targeted multiple Alberta and Federal Court judges,
court staff, the federal and Alberta Attorneys General,
and the Mayor of Calgary. The T-1546-18 statement of
claim exactly reproduces much of the text, formatting,
claims, and remedies of the Williams June 22, 2018
statement of claim (Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070,
paras. 20-21). Williams, Potvin, and Belanger were
apparently now collaborators. The primary difference
between the two filings is the T-1546-18 Statement of
Claim describes the Potvin residence foreclosure as the
basis for the lawsuit.
The Federal Court’s response was swift. On September
20, 2018, Prothonotary Aalto designated Potvin’s
lawsuit as a “specially managed proceeding” (Potvin
v Rooke, 2018b). Further steps were prohibited until
a case management judge was assigned. Prothonotary
Ring was appointed in that role on October 23, 2018,
confirmed filing of motions to strike out Potvin’s action
and declare him a vexatious litigant, and timelines for
associated steps (Potvin v Rooke, 2018c).
Potvin responded with irregular correspondence
declaring various defects in the defendants’ filings,
and then a motion that Potvin had won by default:
a Strawman Theory claim that the true “private”
defendants had not taken any steps to defend
themselves. Prothonotary Ring rejected Potvin’s
attempts to pre-empt the motions to strike (Potvin v
Rooke, 2019a). Potvin then unsuccessfully attempted to
file more documents, including an ex parte injunction
motion. These were intercepted by the Registry and
refused filing (Potvin v Rooke, 2019b).
On March 1, 2019 Potvin was declared a vexatious
litigant without personal appearance (Potvin v Rooke,
2019c), because: 1) Potvin was relitigating settled
matters 2) Potvin’s range of litigation targets had