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
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
