ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 83
2019 ABQB 388, paras. 34-43). Several weeks later
CPD made an irregular leave application to the Alberta
Court of Appeal, that was denied on first preliminary
review (Slatter, 2019). CPD did not attend the July 2019
hearing, and the grandmother’s application to become
the girl’s guardian and parent was granted (DAH v KH
(12 July 2019), Edmonton FL03 58017 (Alta QB)). CPD
subsequently wrote the Chief Justice of the Alberta
Court of Queen’s Bench and complained that he had
“been lied about, slandered, defamed ...and religiously
persecuted.” (CPD, 2019).
No direct involvement by Belanger in this matter has
been identified. This litigation is the only known court
proceeding by CPD.
V. Overview of Belanger and CERI Characteristics
and Activity
As the preceding review illustrates, although CERI’s
litigation has exhibited some minimal evolution,
Belanger and his acolytes are still consistently ineffective
and unsuccessful. Legally, that outcome is no surprise.
Pseudolaw is not accepted by any courts worldwide,
and the general public is equally disinterested in
and dismissive of these marginal antisocial activities
(Netolitzky, 2021).
Furthermore, CERI’s membership, and particularly
Belanger, have proven ineffective “in working inside
the system,” with the result that their litigation is
rapidly terminated, and many CERI members are then
subject to prospective litigation gatekeeping steps. In a
somewhat ironic twist, the least capable CERI litigator
is Belanger himself, and yet he is the driving actor for
much of CERI’s activity. This close review of CERI’s
and Belanger’s court activity leads to a number of
conclusions.
A. CERI Litigation
On a per capita basis, CERI appears to be the most
litigious pseudolaw movement in Canada. That pattern
is a direct consequence of how Belanger and CERI
adherents aggressively employ pseudolaw to inflict
harm on their perceived enemies, or, more accurately,
attempt to harm those arrayed against them. Notably,
many of the CERI litigation scenarios reviewed were
either: 1) direct attacks on opposing persons and/or
government actors, or 2) occurred after “defensive”
steps using non-CERI pseudolaw methods, such as
debt elimination strategies, had already failed. That
pattern reflects CERI’s overall orientation, and, for
example, continues the long-established CERI practice
of ineffective Criminal Code processes to “privately”
initiate criminal proceedings that target and harass
perceived opponents (Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB
571, paras. 139, 188). The Williams group lawsuit (Part
IV(H)) is the ultimate evolution of this litigation-based
attack strategy, where a lawsuit was intended to re-
write existing unfavorable jurisprudence.
Some pseudolaw movements conduct attack lawsuits
(Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 812-813), but CERI takes this
approach to a new level. That may be a central appeal
for CERI’s/Belanger’s customers. CERI operates
an offensive, retaliatory, and disciplinary litigation
scheme.
However, these offensive litigation activities occur in
a forum, conventional courts, where absolutely no
success is possible. Belanger must recognize, at some
level, that these failures are inevitable. He has been
defeated in these efforts for approaching 25 years.
However, CERI litigation activities are structured so
that even when Belanger and his followers fail, their
activities do interfere with court operations, and, in
that sense, inflict a certain “litigation cost” on others.
As illustrated in Part IV, Canadian courts have become
progressively more effective in “damage control.” If
CERI litigation is intended to collaterally cause harm,
its effectiveness in that role is in decline.
A notable feature of CERI’s application of law, and
not-law, is the forum for that activity. Some pseudolaw
groups and gurus conduct proceedings in non-
government vigilante courts that the pseudolaw
adherents themselves organize and operate (e.g.,
Netolitzky, 2023c, III, VIA). CERI does not employ
that strategy. Instead, CERI seeks to obtain results in
“regular” Canadian courts. Belanger’s scheme requires
that approach, since CERI litigation is ultimately based
on:
1. Crown authority, combined with a
specific gap in Crown authority
2019 ABQB 388, paras. 34-43). Several weeks later
CPD made an irregular leave application to the Alberta
Court of Appeal, that was denied on first preliminary
review (Slatter, 2019). CPD did not attend the July 2019
hearing, and the grandmother’s application to become
the girl’s guardian and parent was granted (DAH v KH
(12 July 2019), Edmonton FL03 58017 (Alta QB)). CPD
subsequently wrote the Chief Justice of the Alberta
Court of Queen’s Bench and complained that he had
“been lied about, slandered, defamed ...and religiously
persecuted.” (CPD, 2019).
No direct involvement by Belanger in this matter has
been identified. This litigation is the only known court
proceeding by CPD.
V. Overview of Belanger and CERI Characteristics
and Activity
As the preceding review illustrates, although CERI’s
litigation has exhibited some minimal evolution,
Belanger and his acolytes are still consistently ineffective
and unsuccessful. Legally, that outcome is no surprise.
Pseudolaw is not accepted by any courts worldwide,
and the general public is equally disinterested in
and dismissive of these marginal antisocial activities
(Netolitzky, 2021).
Furthermore, CERI’s membership, and particularly
Belanger, have proven ineffective “in working inside
the system,” with the result that their litigation is
rapidly terminated, and many CERI members are then
subject to prospective litigation gatekeeping steps. In a
somewhat ironic twist, the least capable CERI litigator
is Belanger himself, and yet he is the driving actor for
much of CERI’s activity. This close review of CERI’s
and Belanger’s court activity leads to a number of
conclusions.
A. CERI Litigation
On a per capita basis, CERI appears to be the most
litigious pseudolaw movement in Canada. That pattern
is a direct consequence of how Belanger and CERI
adherents aggressively employ pseudolaw to inflict
harm on their perceived enemies, or, more accurately,
attempt to harm those arrayed against them. Notably,
many of the CERI litigation scenarios reviewed were
either: 1) direct attacks on opposing persons and/or
government actors, or 2) occurred after “defensive”
steps using non-CERI pseudolaw methods, such as
debt elimination strategies, had already failed. That
pattern reflects CERI’s overall orientation, and, for
example, continues the long-established CERI practice
of ineffective Criminal Code processes to “privately”
initiate criminal proceedings that target and harass
perceived opponents (Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB
571, paras. 139, 188). The Williams group lawsuit (Part
IV(H)) is the ultimate evolution of this litigation-based
attack strategy, where a lawsuit was intended to re-
write existing unfavorable jurisprudence.
Some pseudolaw movements conduct attack lawsuits
(Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 812-813), but CERI takes this
approach to a new level. That may be a central appeal
for CERI’s/Belanger’s customers. CERI operates
an offensive, retaliatory, and disciplinary litigation
scheme.
However, these offensive litigation activities occur in
a forum, conventional courts, where absolutely no
success is possible. Belanger must recognize, at some
level, that these failures are inevitable. He has been
defeated in these efforts for approaching 25 years.
However, CERI litigation activities are structured so
that even when Belanger and his followers fail, their
activities do interfere with court operations, and, in
that sense, inflict a certain “litigation cost” on others.
As illustrated in Part IV, Canadian courts have become
progressively more effective in “damage control.” If
CERI litigation is intended to collaterally cause harm,
its effectiveness in that role is in decline.
A notable feature of CERI’s application of law, and
not-law, is the forum for that activity. Some pseudolaw
groups and gurus conduct proceedings in non-
government vigilante courts that the pseudolaw
adherents themselves organize and operate (e.g.,
Netolitzky, 2023c, III, VIA). CERI does not employ
that strategy. Instead, CERI seeks to obtain results in
“regular” Canadian courts. Belanger’s scheme requires
that approach, since CERI litigation is ultimately based
on:
1. Crown authority, combined with a
specific gap in Crown authority
