International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 80
expanded, and included judges who had decided
against Potvin and 3) Potvin was already subject to
court access restrictions in Alberta courts, so parallel
Federal Court steps were justified. Potvin was ordered
to pay the defendant judges’ legal expenses.
Eleven days later, Potvin filed a 115-page appeal
(Potvin v Rooke, 2019d). In the litigation that followed
Potvin no longer advanced CERI-type arguments,
but, instead, focused on claims that Potvin was split
between himself, flesh and blood, and an “Estate.”
Potvin’s persistent and repeated failure to respond to
the Federal Court of Appeal’s directions first led to the
appeal being dismissed without any hearing (Potvin
v Rooke (5 June 2019), Calgary A-116-19 (FCA)),
then Potvin being declared a vexatious litigant and
prohibited from conducting litigation at the Federal
Court of Appeal, except with the Court’s permission
(Potvin v Rooke, 2019 FCA 285).
Once again, the Federal Courts efficiently managed
Potvin’s abusive litigation. Its problematic character
was identified, and effective management preempted
Potvin’s attempts to divert and prolong the litigation.
Potvin throughout remained fixated on stereotypic
pseudolaw concepts, but abandoned his CERI-specific
variation of those.
H. CERI Group Federal Court Lawsuit vs Associate
Chief Justice Rooke -Williams v Rooke, Federal Court
of Canada Docket No. T-2015-18
On December 9, 2018, a 182-page Statement of Claim
was filed in the Federal Court of Canada naming five
CERI member “Claimants,” including Williams and
Belanger, against “The private man in his private
individual capacity: John D. Rooke” as the single
“defendant” (Williams v Rooke, 2018). Williams
conducted all communications for this purported “class
action,” aside from a notice of motion by Belanger that
was rejected prior to filing (Williams v Rooke, 2019b).
At this point Williams’ T-1200-18 lawsuit was still live.
Several aspects of this lawsuit are highly unusual. First,
this action is the only identified example of collective
litigation by CERI, and was made explicitly on that
basis. Second, Potvin’s and Williams’ other Federal
Court lawsuits are also specifically linked to this group
lawsuit (Williams v Rooke, 2019a).
Another innovation was the manner in which the
lawsuit was framed. Rather than being an attack on
conventional state and court jurisdiction, here the
plaintiffs claimed that court decisions, specifically
by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, that had criticized
CERI, were defamation (Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC
1070, para. 9). The CERI “Claimants” argued they were
unfairly and incorrectly grouped with other Canadian
pseudolaw litigants, such as Freemen-on-the-Land.
Belanger had been advancing that specific complaint
since 2012 (Netolitzky, 2019, pp. 1195-1196 Paraclete,
2012b). Allegedly, judicial criticism of CERI had
resulted in broad-based discrimination and other harm
(Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070, para. 9). Williams
recycled allegations from the T-1200-18 action, while
the other Claimants each contributed their own
narratives of allegedly problematic interactions with
police and government actors. Some claims were
dramatic. “minister Timothy” Pasula expressed fear of
“more enforced homosexual activities,” while Belanger
complained remand officials spread false rumors that
he is a pedophile (Williams v Rooke, 2018, paras. D3.13,
J1.36).
The statement of claim argued that CERI religious
beliefs are genuine, and must be accommodated per
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international
human rights treaties. Writing Meads v Meads was “bad
faith” and “malfeasance in public office.” The Claimants’
demands included $150 million in damages, a publicly
broadcast and distributed apology, a court order
prohibiting future interference with CERI activities,
“complete repeal” of Meads v Meads, and that Associate
Chief Justice Rooke is removed from the bench (Rooke
v Williams, 2020 FC 1070, para. 9). This lawsuit was
therefore not merely a CERI retaliatory proceeding,
but also a global attempt to subvert Canadian anti-
pseudolaw court decisions that address CERI and,
more globally, pseudolaw concepts as a whole. While
this filing is unorthodox in legal senses, its content was
unusually sophisticated for CERI, and demonstrated
that someone involved in the preparation of the
document (probably Williams) had anticipated actual
legal principles, such as the defences of privileged
speech and judicial immunity.
The Federal Court almost immediately moved to
aggressively manage this lawsuit. On January 31, 2019,
Prothonotary Tabib issued a direction requesting

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 81
submissions on whether Williams may represent the
other four plaintiffs, and whether the statement of
claim was outside the Federal Court’s jurisdiction as a
common law tort action against an individual (Rooke
v Williams, 2020 ABQB 1070, para. 10 Williams v
Rooke, 2019c). Prothonotary Molgat then on August
12, 2019 concluded that Williams was not authorized
to represent the other “Claimants,” and so the Federal
Court had no jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit (Rooke
v Williams, 2020 ABQB 1070, para. 11 Williams v
Rooke, 2019d). The statement of claim was therefore
“unfiled.” Williams demanded and received a refund of
the court filing fee (Williams v Rooke, 2019e). Williams
then harassed the Federal Court for months afterwards,
with non-CERI pseudolaw documents that explicitly
advanced Strawman Theory concepts supposedly
prohibited according to CERI “religious” belief (Rooke
v Williams, 2020 FC 1070, paras. 4, 12). Williams, too,
had switched from being a King James Bible literalist,
to a pseudolaw Strawman strategy inconsistent with
CERI orthodoxy.
This development marked the last point at which CERI
has involved itself with the Federal Court of Canada.
During this proceeding Williams and Belanger parted
paths and, following his usual pattern, Belanger
denounced Williams as unfaithful and disobedient.
Williams was declared a vexatious litigant in Federal
Court in 2020 (Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070) and
then in Ontario in 2022 (Williams v Tuck, 2022 ONSC
4464). The recent Ontario decision demonstrated that
Williams was still using pseudolaw years later, but of
a form that is blasphemous and necrophilia, at least
according to CERI’s purported “religious” doctrines.
I. R v Berg, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket
No. 160099792Q1
On October 25, 2017, the Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench convicted Carlo Berg of sexual assault with
a weapon (R v Berg (25 October 2017), Edmonton
160099792Q1 (Alta QB)). This conviction was Berg’s
third sexual offense conviction he had previously
been convicted for two separate incidents, one a
sexual assault on a minor, the other an indecent act
(masturbation) in front of a minor (R v Berg, 2019
ABQB 541, paras. 12-16). The Crown applied that
Berg be designated a Long-Term Offender, a person
subject to up to ten years of custodial supervision. Berg
had a long-standing interest in pseudolaw. During
his trial Berg fired his lawyer and provided the Court
with Freeman-on-the-Land pseudolegal documents
(R v Berg, 2016) that reference Freeman-on-the-Land
gurus Robert Arthur Menard and Mary Elizabeth
Croft (Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 624-626), as well as US
Sovereign Citizen /legal magic guru “Dr. Rev. Druanna
Johnston” (Johnston, 2006 Johnston, 2012 Johnston,
2018). Berg subsequently hired a second lawyer, who
conducted the remainder of his defence (R v Berg, 2019
ABQB 541, para. 5). Berg then fired the second lawyer
and represented himself during sentencing.
Berg demanded immediate release. Berg was innocent,
and outside state and court jurisdiction (R v Berg,
2019 ABQB 541, paras. 4, 70). Berg relied on several
puzzle box-like packages of unusual and unorthodox
materials, including CERI pseudolaw materials (R
v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541, paras. 34-45, 48-55). The
pseudolaw concepts found in Berg’s documents were
unremarkable: that he is not the Strawman “CARLO
FREDERICK MICHAEL BERG,” Berg is a “Minister of
Christ” and only subject to the King James Bible, and
interaction with “persons” is necrophilia. Berg, on that
basis, purported to unilaterally dismiss the criminal
proceedings in his favour.
Justice Mah rejected these claims had any legal effect,
and, instead, concluded that Berg’s attempts to engage
pseudolaw created a presumption Berg acted in bad
faith and for ulterior purposes (R v Berg, 2019, paras.
56, 74). Berg’s attempts to evade criminal sanction
were a negative factor against parole or early release,
and Berg’s pseudolegal beliefs that he is beyond the law
were a serious contributing risk factor that favored a
Long-Term Offender order (R v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541,
paras. 93, 105-107). Justice Mah concluded while Berg
is entitled to his pseudo-religious and pseudolegal
doctrines, “his attempt to put those beliefs into
practice is a gross impediment to any rehabilitation
and successful reintegration into the community.” (R
v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541, para. 114). Berg received a
seven-year sentence for the 2017 sexual assault, and
a further seven-year period of Long-Term Offender
supervision (R v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541, para. 120).
Belanger was personally involved with Berg. In 2018
they both were detained together at the Edmonton
Remand Centre, where Belanger was in pre-trial