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
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
