International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 82
detention for drug charges. Belanger was leading a “Bible
study group,” which more likely was just a pseudolaw
recruiting step. Belanger wrote an “Ecclesiastical
Asseveration” in support of Berg’s pseudolaw claims,
and, prior to sentencing, Berg sought to be released
into Belanger’s supervision, personally. Unsurprisingly,
that application was rejected (R v Berg, 2019 ABQB
541, paras. 38, 42-43).
Berg’s attempts to employ pseudolaw were readily
managed and did not significantly prolong his
trial. His claims were nothing but familiar and long
discounted pseudolaw theories promoted by CERI
and other pseudolaw groups. Instead, Berg’s resorting
to CERI pseudolaw was a negative sentencing factor
and resulted in Berg receiving a longer sentence and
supervisory period. Though Belanger often posts
online videos in response to events that involve CERI,
Belanger has not to date commented publicly on Berg,
and Belanger’s involvement and relationship with this
convicted repeat sex offender.
J. CPD Child Guardianship and Parenting Litigation
-CP (Re), Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket
Nos. FL03 58016, 1903 00009.
Two 2019 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decisions
(CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310 CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388)
document an unusual example of pseudolaw litigation
with a family law subject (Netolitzky, 2017, pp. 982-
983, 989), where a father used CERI pseudolaw to
demand access to and ownership of a young girl as
personal property. The child’s biological mother had
substance abuse issues and abandoned the child. The
maternal grandmother then informally functioned as
the girl’s caregiver and guardian (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB
310, paras. 5-6). In 2018, a person who claimed to
be the girl’s biological father reappeared after a long
absence. The Court decisions refer to the father by his
initials--“CP”--though his true legal name/initials were
almost certainly “CPD.” CERI affiliates sometimes omit
their last family name, claiming that is not a “Christian
given name” (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 21, 45).
CPD declared he had obtained access rights to the girl
via a “private agreement” where he paid the biological
mother for the child (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, para.
16).
The grandmother then applied to become the formal
guardian and parent of the girl. CPD personally
appeared in court to resist that step, and, at first, made
somewhat conventional claims that he was a fit parent
and guardian (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 7-20).
The matter was set for a July 2019 hearing. CPD was
given the opportunity to make a cross-application in
response.
While earlier filings and the “private agreement” had
obvious pseudolaw components, CPD in April 2019
dramatically escalated his reliance on pseudolaw.
Several irregular documents were submitted to the
trial coordinators. CPD declared he was not subject
to Canadian legislation, that the King James Bible is
a supraconstitutional authority, and the young girl
was CPD’s chattel--CPD owned the child as personal
property (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 21-36).
The irregular April 2019 documents were referred to an
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench justice who identified
the presumptively abusive nature of CPD’s evolving
pseudolaw strategies, and CPD was provided the
opportunity to make written submissions in response
(CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 22-36, 40-44). CPD
was also instructed to disclose his residential address,
and provide government identification to verify his
correct name (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 45-49).
That step was framed as an opportunity for CPD to
establish his good faith, fair-dealing intentions. CPD
was also warned that his pseudolaw-based denial of
Canadian law could have serious potential implications
for his status with the child, and that CPD should
investigate why CERI litigants, including Belanger,
were unsuccessful in court (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310,
paras 35, 52).
CPD made no response. In a second written decision
CPD was made subject to court access gatekeeping
as a vexatious litigant (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388).
Among the aggravating factors were CPD’s escalating
commitment to CERI pseudolaw and ideology, his
use of presumptively abusive concepts, and CPD’s
pseudolaw-based intimidation by purportedly
unilaterally imposing penalties on the grandmother
(CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388, paras. 22-29). An unusual
aspect of this decision was that CPD was prohibited
from any participation in or attendance at the
upcoming July 2019 hearing, except with permission
of the Court or with a lawyer representative (CP (Re),
detention for drug charges. Belanger was leading a “Bible
study group,” which more likely was just a pseudolaw
recruiting step. Belanger wrote an “Ecclesiastical
Asseveration” in support of Berg’s pseudolaw claims,
and, prior to sentencing, Berg sought to be released
into Belanger’s supervision, personally. Unsurprisingly,
that application was rejected (R v Berg, 2019 ABQB
541, paras. 38, 42-43).
Berg’s attempts to employ pseudolaw were readily
managed and did not significantly prolong his
trial. His claims were nothing but familiar and long
discounted pseudolaw theories promoted by CERI
and other pseudolaw groups. Instead, Berg’s resorting
to CERI pseudolaw was a negative sentencing factor
and resulted in Berg receiving a longer sentence and
supervisory period. Though Belanger often posts
online videos in response to events that involve CERI,
Belanger has not to date commented publicly on Berg,
and Belanger’s involvement and relationship with this
convicted repeat sex offender.
J. CPD Child Guardianship and Parenting Litigation
-CP (Re), Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket
Nos. FL03 58016, 1903 00009.
Two 2019 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decisions
(CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310 CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388)
document an unusual example of pseudolaw litigation
with a family law subject (Netolitzky, 2017, pp. 982-
983, 989), where a father used CERI pseudolaw to
demand access to and ownership of a young girl as
personal property. The child’s biological mother had
substance abuse issues and abandoned the child. The
maternal grandmother then informally functioned as
the girl’s caregiver and guardian (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB
310, paras. 5-6). In 2018, a person who claimed to
be the girl’s biological father reappeared after a long
absence. The Court decisions refer to the father by his
initials--“CP”--though his true legal name/initials were
almost certainly “CPD.” CERI affiliates sometimes omit
their last family name, claiming that is not a “Christian
given name” (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 21, 45).
CPD declared he had obtained access rights to the girl
via a “private agreement” where he paid the biological
mother for the child (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, para.
16).
The grandmother then applied to become the formal
guardian and parent of the girl. CPD personally
appeared in court to resist that step, and, at first, made
somewhat conventional claims that he was a fit parent
and guardian (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 7-20).
The matter was set for a July 2019 hearing. CPD was
given the opportunity to make a cross-application in
response.
While earlier filings and the “private agreement” had
obvious pseudolaw components, CPD in April 2019
dramatically escalated his reliance on pseudolaw.
Several irregular documents were submitted to the
trial coordinators. CPD declared he was not subject
to Canadian legislation, that the King James Bible is
a supraconstitutional authority, and the young girl
was CPD’s chattel--CPD owned the child as personal
property (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 21-36).
The irregular April 2019 documents were referred to an
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench justice who identified
the presumptively abusive nature of CPD’s evolving
pseudolaw strategies, and CPD was provided the
opportunity to make written submissions in response
(CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 22-36, 40-44). CPD
was also instructed to disclose his residential address,
and provide government identification to verify his
correct name (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310, paras. 45-49).
That step was framed as an opportunity for CPD to
establish his good faith, fair-dealing intentions. CPD
was also warned that his pseudolaw-based denial of
Canadian law could have serious potential implications
for his status with the child, and that CPD should
investigate why CERI litigants, including Belanger,
were unsuccessful in court (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310,
paras 35, 52).
CPD made no response. In a second written decision
CPD was made subject to court access gatekeeping
as a vexatious litigant (CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388).
Among the aggravating factors were CPD’s escalating
commitment to CERI pseudolaw and ideology, his
use of presumptively abusive concepts, and CPD’s
pseudolaw-based intimidation by purportedly
unilaterally imposing penalties on the grandmother
(CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388, paras. 22-29). An unusual
aspect of this decision was that CPD was prohibited
from any participation in or attendance at the
upcoming July 2019 hearing, except with permission
of the Court or with a lawyer representative (CP (Re),
