ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 85
C. CERI as a Community
Some pseudolaw populations are social groups. A
typical structure is an organized online or real-world
community with a center figure, surrounding acolytes,
and then a broader supporter/adherent population
(e.g. Netolitzky, 2023b Sarteschi, 2023). The Canadian
Paradigm Education Group Detaxer organization had
both a formal teacher and student educational structure
(Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 622-624), but also a broader
“Paradigm lifestyle,” where members were encouraged
to attend combination educational, dinner, and dance
social events, as a separate, superiorly informed, and
privileged group. Some pseudolaw communities
have even self-organized as formal, alternative,
vigilante governments (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 172-173
Netolitzky, 2023c, III), with elected officials, political
and policy congresses, and an associated formal court
apparatus and officials.
CERI is different. CERI has no social organization or
community, but, instead, there is only one relationship:
the close but usually transient interaction between
conman (Belanger) and his marks (CERI affiliates).
CERI is a single entity, without alternative branches.
Participants enter by associating with Belanger,
and are subsequently ejected. To the degree CERI’s
membership can be traced, only distant actors who do
not become involved in court activities with Belanger
appear to persist.
Given that, CERI has no requirement for an apparatus
or rules to maintain control and orthodoxy. You are
either in or out. That status is determined by CERI’s
one central consistent personality: Belanger. To date
no CERI “splinter groups” have been observed. That
is no surprise, because anyone who spends time with
Belanger learns, firsthand, that Belanger is a dismal
failure. People interested in pseudolaw do not retain
CERI affiliation, but simply just move on to something
else that is also pseudolaw, but of a different kind.
That pattern also explains why Belanger and CERI have
no “copycats.” Anyone who observes Belanger knows
Belanger’s techniques do not work. Furthermore, that
information is not restricted only to “insiders,” since,
for over a decade, Belanger’s ineffective litigation antics
have been condemned by Canadian courts in published
decisions, and documented in online critic forums
such as Quatloos. “Due diligence” that targets CERI
would rapidly disclose this branch of pseudolaw, and
its promoter, are known and confirmed serial failures.
Thus, CERI is not so much a movement, or social
group. CERI, instead, is a parasitic system with a
single primary component--Belanger--surrounded by
a loosely orbiting assortment of temporary satellites,
who soon will either drift off or be ejected. Extending
that astronomical metaphor, ejection is a near
inevitable consequence of too close an encounter with
the system’s primary body: Belanger himself.
D. “minister” Belanger, a Priest Without a Flock
CERI is, in most ways, the personal expression of
one individual: Belanger. Belanger operates as the
central actor behind CERI litigation activities. That
primary role means he, personally, is to blame for
the negative consequences that follow. Nevertheless,
for decades, Belanger has never altered his pattern of
activity. Instead, Belanger projects any failure onto his
followers they are faithless.
Belanger maintains a consistent public personality and
presentation in his videos, private teleconferences, and
media and court appearances. Belanger mimics certain
Christian teaching styles: rapid-fire speech, punctuated
by repeated citation to Bible passages. His voice follows
a sing-song pattern, with dramatic pauses. While
superficially polite and formal, Belanger makes highly
offensive, sometimes racist, claims. Belanger arrogantly
addresses those who possess conventional authority--
judges, government officials, lawyers, and institutional
actors--they are inferiors with defective knowledge and
understanding. Belanger “educates” them.
Anthropologist Vanessa McCuaig personally observed
Belanger during his 2018 Edmonton criminal
proceedings. McCuaig concluded that, besides
presenting stereotypic CERI arguments, Belanger’s in-
court actions were chiefly a performance, “peculiar
for their emphasis on showmanship and spectacle”
(McCuaig, 2019, p. 99). When one moves beyond
Belanger’s quasi-religious/legal patter, Belanger is an
unsophisticated debater and communicator. McCuaig
describes in-court “gotcha”-type stratagems (McCuaig,
2019, pp. 85-99), rather than principled and/or logical
analysis and argument. That characteristic is equally
C. CERI as a Community
Some pseudolaw populations are social groups. A
typical structure is an organized online or real-world
community with a center figure, surrounding acolytes,
and then a broader supporter/adherent population
(e.g. Netolitzky, 2023b Sarteschi, 2023). The Canadian
Paradigm Education Group Detaxer organization had
both a formal teacher and student educational structure
(Netolitzky, 2016, pp. 622-624), but also a broader
“Paradigm lifestyle,” where members were encouraged
to attend combination educational, dinner, and dance
social events, as a separate, superiorly informed, and
privileged group. Some pseudolaw communities
have even self-organized as formal, alternative,
vigilante governments (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 172-173
Netolitzky, 2023c, III), with elected officials, political
and policy congresses, and an associated formal court
apparatus and officials.
CERI is different. CERI has no social organization or
community, but, instead, there is only one relationship:
the close but usually transient interaction between
conman (Belanger) and his marks (CERI affiliates).
CERI is a single entity, without alternative branches.
Participants enter by associating with Belanger,
and are subsequently ejected. To the degree CERI’s
membership can be traced, only distant actors who do
not become involved in court activities with Belanger
appear to persist.
Given that, CERI has no requirement for an apparatus
or rules to maintain control and orthodoxy. You are
either in or out. That status is determined by CERI’s
one central consistent personality: Belanger. To date
no CERI “splinter groups” have been observed. That
is no surprise, because anyone who spends time with
Belanger learns, firsthand, that Belanger is a dismal
failure. People interested in pseudolaw do not retain
CERI affiliation, but simply just move on to something
else that is also pseudolaw, but of a different kind.
That pattern also explains why Belanger and CERI have
no “copycats.” Anyone who observes Belanger knows
Belanger’s techniques do not work. Furthermore, that
information is not restricted only to “insiders,” since,
for over a decade, Belanger’s ineffective litigation antics
have been condemned by Canadian courts in published
decisions, and documented in online critic forums
such as Quatloos. “Due diligence” that targets CERI
would rapidly disclose this branch of pseudolaw, and
its promoter, are known and confirmed serial failures.
Thus, CERI is not so much a movement, or social
group. CERI, instead, is a parasitic system with a
single primary component--Belanger--surrounded by
a loosely orbiting assortment of temporary satellites,
who soon will either drift off or be ejected. Extending
that astronomical metaphor, ejection is a near
inevitable consequence of too close an encounter with
the system’s primary body: Belanger himself.
D. “minister” Belanger, a Priest Without a Flock
CERI is, in most ways, the personal expression of
one individual: Belanger. Belanger operates as the
central actor behind CERI litigation activities. That
primary role means he, personally, is to blame for
the negative consequences that follow. Nevertheless,
for decades, Belanger has never altered his pattern of
activity. Instead, Belanger projects any failure onto his
followers they are faithless.
Belanger maintains a consistent public personality and
presentation in his videos, private teleconferences, and
media and court appearances. Belanger mimics certain
Christian teaching styles: rapid-fire speech, punctuated
by repeated citation to Bible passages. His voice follows
a sing-song pattern, with dramatic pauses. While
superficially polite and formal, Belanger makes highly
offensive, sometimes racist, claims. Belanger arrogantly
addresses those who possess conventional authority--
judges, government officials, lawyers, and institutional
actors--they are inferiors with defective knowledge and
understanding. Belanger “educates” them.
Anthropologist Vanessa McCuaig personally observed
Belanger during his 2018 Edmonton criminal
proceedings. McCuaig concluded that, besides
presenting stereotypic CERI arguments, Belanger’s in-
court actions were chiefly a performance, “peculiar
for their emphasis on showmanship and spectacle”
(McCuaig, 2019, p. 99). When one moves beyond
Belanger’s quasi-religious/legal patter, Belanger is an
unsophisticated debater and communicator. McCuaig
describes in-court “gotcha”-type stratagems (McCuaig,
2019, pp. 85-99), rather than principled and/or logical
analysis and argument. That characteristic is equally
