Alfred Potvin - Belanger's Sock Puppet screws Belanger in Court

[Burnaby49]

Note - I'm Breaking this analysis into two posts because it exceeds the maximum single post character count of 61,088 characters. In my defense most of the word count is from quotes from the decision rather than my inane babblings. But the character limit warns you what you are facing.



Alfred Gerald Potvin had a dream, a wild and crazy dream of a world where he could borrow money and not pay it back, a world where, if his creditors had the temerity to demand they be repaid, he could hit them for millions in fees. A dream we no doubt all share. But unlike we whining cowards he fought to attain his dream. He downloaded copious volumes of documents from the internet which promised, if he followed their magic rites, that his harassers would disappear in a puff of smoke. However, instead of capitulating, they continued demanding their money. So he sued them. Unfortunately he picked the worst possible court to try his internet magic, Alberta's Queen's Bench, and ended up facing the worst possible judge, the dread Judge Rooke himself. This experience, which would have broken a lesser man, instead drove him into the sheltering arms of religion. He became a minister in Belanger's Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International ("CERI") where he was assured that God himself would fight and defeat the bank on his behalf through the unimpeachable authority of the King James Bible. Judge Rooke of course re-framed the issue in an entirely different and unflattering light;

[1] Alfred Gerald Potvin [Mr. Potvin], also known as Fred Gerald Potvin, has, since 2017, employed a range of legally false concepts in attempts to frustrate foreclosure of his residence, to retaliate against his mortgage lender, and attack court, police, and debt collection staff. The ideas he has used are “Organized Pseudolegal Commerical Arguments” or “OPCA”, a class of spurious “pseudolaw” concepts which are sold to litigants by conman “gurus” who promise extraordinary but false benefits: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215. OPCA ideas sound like law and use legal terminology and references, but are universally rejected by Canadian courts.

[3] Mr. Potvin’s litigation history in Alberta and the Federal Court demonstrates he persistently uses these false concepts, despite the fact his attempts to impose pseudolaw on the Courts and opposing parties have failed on every occasion.

[4] In light of this history, this Court now on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction will investigate whether court access restrictions are appropriate for this abusive litigant to manage and minimize his future litigation misconduct in Alberta Courts.

So what's got Rooke so pissed off?

[6] To this point I have had no interaction with Mr. Potvin or any involvement in his Alberta litigation. However, on August 21, 2018 Mr. Potvin filed a lawsuit in Federal Court, Potvin v Rooke, Docket T-1546-18, which names me as one of 15 defendants, the majority of whom are either Court Masters, Judges, or court staff. The T-1546-18 Statement of Claim makes no allegations against me or Chief Justice Moreau, who is another defendant in that action. In fact, my name does not appear anywhere in the Statement of Claim, except for the style of cause and service address information. The only way that the T-1546-18 Statement of Claim has any relation to any of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench defendants is a paragraph which complains that Master Farrington issued an unlawful order in relation to a foreclosure of Mr. Potvin’s residence.

Potvin (Re)
2018 ABQB 652
http://canlii.ca/t/htt3m

In other words Potvin filed a Statement of Claim where Judge Rooke was listed as one of the defendants in whatever action Potvin was taking but he failed to actually specify what Rooke allegedly did that warranted him being included in the lawsuit. While I don't have a copy of the Statement of Claim I have a very similar one in respect to a lawsuit by another of Belanger's followers that is probably exactly the same. In that one there are 25 named defendants, including Judge Rooke, but none are accused of specific allegations. It's all generalized nonsense such as;

A. Claim

The Claimant minister David Williams ("David") claims that the Defendants with knowledge and awareness did;

a. a declaration that Defendants were in violation of laws applicable to them
b. a declaration that Defendants interfered with and violated the due process of law
d. a declaration that Defendants abused and terrorized a Christian, minister David Williams

And on and on right to the letter Z. Page after page about how CERI ministers must be accommodated by the government because of their true beliefs no matter what they deem this accommodation to entail and how Williams right to this had been violate in unspecified ways by the defendants. He also wanted $100,000,000.

What this tells us is that Belanger's been very busy conning sock puppets into filing lawsuits using his CERI bullshit. If the impossible happens and one wins at least something he can claim responsibility. If they fail so what? Doesn't cost him anything, he has no credibility anyhow. However, as this posting will show, this decision is going to be a major problem for Belanger both personally in his two current ongoing criminal trials and for the future of his CERI scam.

Anyhow, back to Potvin. Rooke apparently thought that being named in a lawsuit was sufficient grounds for him to step in and stomp Potvin. Is there a conflict of interest in being the judge in a matter where the defendant is suing you in another legal action? Not according to Rooke;

[8] I conclude this principle applies in relation to my capacity to evaluate Mr. Potvin’s litigation conduct. There simply is no basis for Mr. Potvin to engage me in the Federal Court. Judges are immune from litigation that alleges misconduct in relation to the exercise of judicial authority: Morier and Boily v Rivard, 1985 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 716, 23 DLR (4th) 1. Beyond that, Mr. Potvin has made no allegations about me in any context, whatsoever.

[9] To the degree which I am involved in the Federal Court T-1546-18 action, that is an analogous to an “engineered perceived conflict”. I conclude that has no effect on my authority to issue this Decision. Put another way, applying the test for judicial bias in Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25 (CanLII) at para 20, [2015] 2 SCR 282, no reasonable informed person would conclude I am unable to fairly evaluate Mr. Potvin’s litigation activity simply because he had arbitrarily added my name to a lawsuit which makes no allegations against me.

So what's our boy been up to that Rooke is so eager to review? He started the ball rolling with this;

[10] What follows is a survey of Mr. Potvin’s litigation activities which highlights instances where Mr. Potvin has abused court processes.

A. Royal Bank of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action #1501 07600

[11] On July 6, 2015, the Royal Bank of Canada sued Mr. Potvin and his wife, Theresa Marie Potvin, to collect an outstanding loan debt, and solicitor and own client indemnity costs. No defence was filed, and default judgment for $22,290.61 was found against the Potvins. The Potvins filed no materials in this matter.

Not much to start with but great oaks from little acorns grow and when Potvin went on the offensive he went scorched earth;

B. Royal Bank of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action #1701 01667

[13] The Royal Bank of Canada, on February 1, 2017, filed a Statement of Claim which sought enforcement of a mortgage where the Potvins had failed to keep up their payments. The Bank sought foreclosure and court-ordered sale of a property at 109 Dovertree Place SE, Calgary to collect the outstanding debt.

[14] Mr. Potvin responded with what may accurately be described as a ‘vigorous’ pseudolegal response.

[15] He, on March 6, 2017, filed three documents. One was a “Statement of Defence” which denies liability since the mortgage contract is “void” because:

1. there is no enforceable mortgage contract because of incomplete disclosure,
2. an absence of “equal consideration” negates the contract,
3. Royal Bank did not sign the contract, “making it unilateral, and thus, no contract”, and
4. Royal Bank (allegedly) never actually transferred any money to the Potvins.

[16] The second document is titled “Affidavit of (Al)fred Potvin© without recourse UCC 1-308”, and attached a number of unorthodox documents and an article titled “Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion”. The unorthodox items include:

1. Four documents that make up a “Three/Five Letters” scheme using templates marketed by the UK OPCA website “Get Out Of Debt Free”. Identical documents, except for names, addresses, and account information, are reproduced in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771 (CanLII), 603 AR 261, Appendices A-D. As discussed below, collectively these documents claim that Mr. Potvin has unilaterally extinguished his mortgage debt.

2. An untitled document that claims “Fred of the family: Potvin” owns “Common Law” copyright and trademarks over all variations of his names, and biological and biometric information, including DNA, blood, surgically removed tissue, semen, urine, and feces. Each breach of this intellectual property claim (purportedly) creates a debt of $1 million. A document very similar to this item is attached to Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky as Appendix E.

3. An undated “BILL - Non-Negotiable FRED POTVIN” to the Bank for “Charges under Un-rebutted Tacit Agreement Dated [November 30th, 2017] sent by Recorded delivery”. It claims a total of $7,011,000.00 for “invalid contact by mail” and “unauthorized Trademark infringements”. The “Bill” demands payment within 30 days

[17] The “Affidavit” was accompanied by a “Counterclaim” by “Fred Potvin © Without Recourse ucc 1-308”, whose content is largely reproduced below in Appendix “A”. In brief, the “Counterclaim” states that Bank’s failure to satisfy certain demands means there was no mortgage contract, banks do not loan money, and that the Potvins should receive $7,011,000.00 in copyright infringement damages, “10 million in punitive damages for deceptive banking practices”, and free and clear possession of their home.

[18] “Fred Potvin © Without Recourse ucc 1-308” next, on April 10, 2017, filed a “Notice to Reply to Written Interrogatories / Application” which “granted” the Bank one month to provide answers to 25 questions, which largely relate to the status of the Bank and how loans operate under law.

However the bankers ignored all this as if it was just legal garbage and went ahead with their legal proceedings. Potvin got off the mat and came back swinging in October 2017 when he filed another batch of affidavits, this time focusing on Belanger's CERI crap;

[21] The first Affidavit, filed October 2, 2017, makes a distinction between two aspects of Mr. Potvin: “I Fred, a minister of GOD”, vs “the defendant [FRED POTVIN].” “FRED POTVIN” is a “CORPORATION” and a “CESTUI QUE TRUST”. Potvin invokes the authority of the King James Bible, which is (purportedly) the supreme authority in law:

... I am in good faith, relying on Her Majesty's duty to be in defense of the faith of the King James Bible in royal style, as such, so all of her agents by an Oath of Allegiance are faithful and bear true allegiance with her in that declared defense of the faith. I hope you will not be prejudice or discriminate against my faith and beliefs because I assure you I will not be the only one offended if you so choose to try and threaten or intimidate me to bow before a de facto Government. Yahuwah tells us to separate ourselves from commerce Matthew states that "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other" (Matthew 6:24). Ye cannot serve God and mammon (de facto Government). I assure you that I will not be threatened or intimidated into submission to your false gods because Yahuwah commands me. ...

Mr. Potvin threatens that if his property is not returned immediately he will seek charges under the Criminal Code private information mechanism.

[22] Mr. Potvin also indicates his birth certificate is more than simply documentation of his birth. The birth certificate is linked to a “birth bond” which is worth money:

I know that man's laws are to make money for the Corporation of Canada and to pay back the Interest on the money you the 'de facto government' have borrowed in fraud on my behalf from the I.M.F in the form of my birth bond #, on my Birth Certificate.

[23] He also “resigned as agent of the all cap name” but instead owns “ALFRED GERALD POTVIN”, and has copyright over that “art work”, referencing three documents:

1. Affidavit of Resignation as Agent, Claim of Right (reproduced as Appendix “B”),

2. Affidavit of Title, Affidavit of Beneficial Ownership (reproduced as Appendix “C”), and
3. Notice of Declaration in the Form of a Commercial Affidavit of Truth, Notice of Common Law Copyright Copy Claim and Trademark (reproduced as Appendix “D”).

[24] The October 2, 2017 Affidavit attaches other unorthodox documents, including:

1. materials which explain why bible-derived law is (purportedly) superior to Canadian law;

2. a certificate of registration of copyright issued by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office on April 19, 2017 for “ALFRED GERALD POTVIN, FRED GERALD POTVIN, ALFRED POTVIN, POTVIN FRED GERALD, (and any and all variations)”, where the author and owner is “Fred Potvin”;

3. an “Affidavit of Public Notice of Proclamation”, reproduced as Appendix “E”;

4. an “Apostolic Letter” of Pope Francis, dated July 11, 2013 and commentary;
5. a 19-page “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right”, which is a characteristic Freeman-on-the-Land unilateral declaration that Mr. Potvin is no longer subject to Canadian government authority, and may, among other things, claim Crown land for free, ignore laws, convene his own court, have unlimited access to firearms, use strobe lights and lasers without limitation, and that any copying of the “Notice” entitles Mr. Potvin to “... a fine of Five (5) kilograms of pure twenty-four (24) karet gold, or equivalent on the current exchange value at the time the offence was committed ...”; and

6. an “Enduring Power of Attorney” where “I, POTVIN, ALFRED GERALD, hereby appoint Alfred,Potvin as my Attorney-in-Fact”.

[26] A subsequent October 16, 2017 Affidavit claims Mr. Potvin, “as owner of the copyright”, has a superior claim because “Copyright is international law, and supersedes Provincial or Canadian Statute”. He continues to state he never was loaned any money, and that he has paid for any debt with promissory notes, “... according to the Bills of Exchange Act and UCC 3-603 ...”.

[27] This was followed by an October 20, 2017 Affidavit which complains Mr. Potvin was not consulted for being converted from a “living man” into a “corporate entity”. The October 20, 2017 Affidavit attaches an all but incoherent document titled “BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD; CAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS” apparently authored by “kate of kaea”. That document concludes with this paragraph:

Inasmuch as the Vatican/CORPORATION OF VATICAN CITY, STATE, as commonly understood, is also complicit in this LEGAL NAME/TITLE reality by virtue of LEGAL REGISTRATION, all spiritual notions of "power" are hereby nullified ab initio, ad infinitum where VATICAN CITY is REGISTERED as are all NATIONS/COUNTRIES etc. et al as REGISTERED CROWN OWNED CORPORATIONS and are neutered by association accordingly where any/all assumed presumed "power" is fully and completely destroyed by/of/in/for this LEGAL NAME/TITLE COMPLICIT AGREEMENT/TREATY FRAUD and is therefore complicit in this fraud against all of humanity and life itself as are all claiming any/all legal status in any/all legal forms ab initio, ad infinitum, nunc pro tunc, tunc pro nunc. There are countless essays and radio programs by the non-legal entity "kate of gaia/kaia" for further clarification including on air confessions made by police and lawyers attesting to the truth of this and their inability to claim otherwise, trapped in the legal circular trap of their own construction. Any/all actions made by anyone professing to be in/of/for/by any/all LEGAL NAME/TITLE is fraud, attempt to aid and abet fraud where it is illegal to use/be/claim/think one is a LEGALLY defined anything. Your serve? No, the game is over and Satan and his Harlot (Legal Cronus, Commerce Crone/CROWN) lost all games where all "law" was, and is, church based where court is simply a sin-o-name for church and the living true law was replaced with false dead legal and all robed practitioners, whether court or church serve the same dead LEGAL reality and are rendered soul dead accordingly in the "ayes" of creation. Your soul is on the line/lien while your sins/signs are on the lien/line and only YOU can clear YOUR debt, no savior's coming to save you but rather to condemn you for all your wilfull crimes, now KNOWINGLY being committed by the mere virtue of you having received this, having read it or not."

This passage is representative of the document as a whole.

Judge Rooke had great fun with that "kate of gaia/kaia" comment, professing ignorance of who kate was and from this point calling him/her (I get confused) Kate of Kia.

Again, ignoring the gibberish, the bank plowed on with the foreclosure motivating Potvin to do another frantic internet search for new legal weapons but all that he found were the usual familiar duds. However he did suddenly become an aboriginal;

[29] Mr. Potvin also on December 6, 2017 filed an “Application for Stay of Proceedings/Enforcement Pending Resolution of Appeal”, in which he claimed the foreclosure steps to date were “... Ultra Veres by ignoring all my submissions and making orders (creating liabilities) without allowing for remedy ...”, the house was a “... consumer purchase from its inception, and therefore, paid in full ...”, “... as an Aboriginal, these proceedings have been prejudicial and slanted, and not in my favour ...”, and that his wife would die if they were evicted.

[30] A supporting Affidavit filed the same day stated a vast banking fraud based on fractional reserve accounting meant the Bank “... never lent me any money in the first place ...”, so Mr. Potvin is the damaged party. He complains his copyright interest is being ignored, as is his being “converted” from “a living man, into a corporate entity”, without his consent. Mr. Potvin attests the Masters of this Court are colluding with the Bank and its lawyers, and that they in any case had no jurisdiction over him, because he never:

... crossed the bar, (Boarding the Master’s ship,) at any point during the proceedings, therefore having no contract with the Master or falling under their jurisdiction.

Then our friend Allen Boisjoli entered the picture!

[33] Mr. Potvin next filed an Affidavit on December 20, 2017, which states:

As I wish to settle and discharge this matter, I am attaching the payment instruments and supporting documents which I will be sending to Denise Whitley, and Warren Benson Amantea LLP, on behalf of the Royal Bank of Canada, and they have 30 days for rebut/reply/response, failure to rebut/reply/response will constitute a tacit agreement/acceptance of payments/monies, set-off discharge of any debt owing, and dismissal of these proceedings with prejudice.

I enclose the payment instruments and all supporting documents, in order - The certified Promissory Payment Instrument (Exhibit “A”), Verification of Tender Of Payment (AKA Certification) (Exhibit “B”), Offer of Performance (Exhibit “C”), Notice of Copyright/International Service/Security Agreement (Exhibit “D”), Request for Taxpayer Information Number, (Exhibit “E”), and Verification of Debt Disclosure Statement, (Exhibit “F”),

[34] The attached documents are effectively duplicates of items used by vexatious litigant Allen Nelson Boisjoli in a decision reported as Re Boisjoli. In fact, these are a sloppy adaptation at best of the Boisjoli items, since Mr. Potvin failed to substitute his name for Boisjoli on a number of occasions. In Re Boisjoli, I rejected these documents as an invalid OPCA Three/Five Letter scheme (paras 49-57) which purported to make payments from an imaginary “A4V” bank account with a worthless promissory note (paras 27-44).

And he posted this on the door of his soon to be foreclosed house;

BUYER BEWARE!

You are hereby noticed that the forced sale of 109 Dovertree Place SE Calgary Alberta (plan 7510291, Block 2, the east 27 feet of Lot 11, PID # 971216059) is affected with fraud, and all parties involved in this forced sale are currently being sued in Federal Court.

Anyone interested in buying this property under said fraud may be forced to surrender, at a future date, said property, as well as being liable, to the original owners, for any and all associated costs.

GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY!!

The court court ordered the Potvins to get out of the house. In response Alfred went all-in by bringing up the heavy hitters, minister Belanger and CERI, Belanger's personally created church. No doubt Belanger personally coached Potvin through this part of his submissions;

[36] The next step in the foreclosure was a March 13, 2018 hearing where Master Robertson ordered the Potvins to vacate the foreclosed property by April 3, 2018, and that the property would be re-listed at $199,900.00. The day prior to that hearing Mr. Potvin filed an “Asserveration”, which, among other things, comments on the notice he had placed on the residence door:

[/q... my duty as the Biblical Watchman of Ezekiel 33:1-10 to warn all those involved if a harm or fraud may befall the unsuspecting. I am officially performing the functions of my calling in putting up that notice to warn people and no civil action utilising all caps dead legal fiction formations of names in connection to the living man and women with standing of the King James Bible in defence of the faith may be used to obstruct me as that is criminal. Leviticus 6:2-5 KJVB

Denise Whitely, or any other defacto authority has no right to suppress the facts of this, or any matter wherein faith and it's suppression is being subjected to nuisance intimidation and obstruction of ministry. International and ecclesiastical law has standing in this situation of the intentional material alteration of names as in personation for a financial purpose without the informed consent of the living man and woman under Christ. This personation attempt by Denise Whitley to create joinder with the dead corporate fiction of persons of law with all caps formations of names and the living man and woman's names formed grammatically correct upper lower case, is intentional and an attempt to get the plaintiffs to participate in necrophilia and submit to the respect of persons which is sin. James 2:9 King James Bible. Corporate names are formed using the Roman Alphabet or block capital letters and are persons of law used for surety. ...

Alberta Judges and Masters are paid by the Government of Alberta. The Alberta Corporate government is factually a large shareholder of Royal Bank shares. It is not possible to receive an impartial hearing with a Judge or Master being paid by a corporation who is in a commercial relationship of ownership with one of the defendants.

[37] A second order by Master Robertson, dated April 10, 2018, authorized law enforcement to assist in the removal of the Potvins. The foreclosed property was ultimately sold on July 18, 2018 for $195,000.00. At that point the Potvins’ outstanding debt was $165,449.30.

Obviously Potvin wasn't going to get justice from any court in Alberta so he took the entire issue to the Federal Court of Canada;

[41] In 2018, Mr. Potvin expanded his litigation misconduct to the Federal Court. He on January 15, 2018 filed a Statement of Claim against Masters Prowse, Farrington, and Mason, Justice Campbell, the CEO of Royal Bank of Canada, the lawyer who had conducted the foreclosure litigation, and a real estate agent. Each of these defendants were sued as “the private [man/woman], in [his/her] private capacity”. The text of that Statement of Claim is largely reproduced in Appendix “F”, hereto.

[42] In brief, Mr. Potvin, now “minister Potvin”, claims that the defendants have harmed him because:

1. banks create money out of thin air,

2. the Bank refused to accept promissory notes despite the law being that a promissory note is money in and of itself;

3. that Mr. Potvin has been fraudulently linked to an all upper-case letter name, contrary to Mr. Potvin’s religious beliefs which were not properly accommodated; and

4. the King James Bible trumps Canadian law because of Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation Oath and the Charter preamble.

[43] The defendants applied to have Mr. Potvin’s application struck out. On March 1, 2018, Mr. Potvin filed a “Motion for Relief/Remedy”, complaining the defendants were engaged in:

... intimidation and nuisance to break my faith, as they are attempting to force me to interact with dead corporate entities/trademarks in opposition to my faith (I refer to the All-capitalization for, which denotes a dead, corporate entity, or “person” ... They know full well that if I interact with the motion filed by their “persons” it will contravene my faith, and utterly undo my claim, and my earnest desires to follow God’s instruction not to be a “person” or a “respecter of persons” ...

[44] Mr. Potvin also submitted an Amended Statement of Claim, which was refused filing on April 9, 2018.

[45] The Potvin v Prowse action was struck out on July 6, 2018 by Justice McVeigh who, in unpublished written reasons, concluded that the Potvin v Prowse lawsuit was based on OPCA concepts, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendants. The lawsuit was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process:

Be strong readers, we're almost done with Potvin's litany of loony litigation. Just one more to get us up to date;

F. Potvin v Rooke, Federal Court Docket T-1546-18

[50] Last, is the previously mentioned lawsuit filed by “minister Alfred Potvin”, which names a number of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench staff, Masters, and Chief Justice Moreau and myself as defendants, along with the Federal and Alberta Ministers of Justice, the mayor of Calgary, the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Calgary Police Service, and Justice McVeigh of the Federal Court.

[51] The Statement of Claim alleged numerous breachs of the Charter, human rights legislation, and treaties. Remedies sought include many forms of damages, orders to enforce treaties and legislation, “return of stolen property”, and $10 million “additional damages”. The Statement of Claim is endorsed by:

minister Alfred: Potvin
CERI Ecclesia c/o
109 Dovertree Place South East,
Calgary, Alberta
no code non commercial
Non domestic without CANADA
Commonwealth national (Eph 2:12)
...
The Claimant

Done and done. Now on to the reason for reciting this history, Queen's Bench's unilateral decision to stomp on Alfred.

[54] As this review indicates, Mr. Potvin has engaged in a array of unsuccessful litigation in the Federal and Alberta Courts. My next issue is to determine whether that litigation represents abuse of court processes, and if so, whether that misconduct warrants court intervention.

Paragraphs 54 to 62 are a review of the law in respect to declaring an individual a vexatious litigant (a term not used by the court). Then, on to a justification of the past 66 paragraphs;

[67] As my survey of Mr. Potvin’s litigation illustrates, his activities involve numerous OPCA concepts, however there will be several items that I address in some detail due to their role in his litigation and particular abusive character.

So Judge Rooke reviewed every legal argument attempted by Potvin and determined that they were all abusive. He started the five letter scheme with a reference to a favorite site of our British contributors GOODF;


1. Three/Five Letters Schemes

[68] The Three/Five Letters OPCA scheme category is reviewed in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, at paras 55-73 and Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 (CanLII) at paras 6-21. Briefly, a Three/Five Letter process uses a series of documents that are sent to a target one after another. Each says that if the target does not respond, or does not respond in an adequate manner, then certain results automatically occur. These “foisted unilateral agreements” (Meads v Meads, at paras 447-528) are all based on a commonplace pseudolaw fallacy, that in contract silence means agreement or consent.

[69] Mr. Potvin has engaged in several Three/Five Letters processes. First, his March 6, 2017 Affidavit and Statement of Defence rely on Three/Five Letters documents that Mr. Potvin obtained from the UK “Get Out Of Debt Free” website.

And of course Potvin's pathetic attempt to use Allen Boisjoli's material yet again;

[71] The second Three/Five Letters scheme used by Mr. Potvin is blatantly copied from materials that Allen Nelson Boisjoli, a Freeman-on-the-Land, attempted to use to demand $225,000.00 from a peace officer in retaliation for the officer issuing Boisjoli a speeding ticket: Re Boisjoli. I concluded that Boisjoli’s materials were legally ineffective, an attempt to abuse court processes, and ordered that Boisjoli was made subject to court access restrictions as a vexatious litigant on that basis.

[72] Boisjoli subsequently attempted the same approach in Federal Court, which was rejected in Allen Boisjoli Holdings v Papadoptu, 2016 FC 1260 (CanLII) at para 14 as criminal intimidation and harassment. Boisjoli was prohibited from filing materials in that court without leave, and banned from physically attending Federal Court Registry offices.

Rooke was not impressed by Potvin's pointless regurgitation of an already discredited scam;

[73] I note these decisions were issued before Mr. Potvin embarked in his futile attempts to cancel his foreclosure debts. He therefore was not engaged in any novel or exploratory activity via the two Three/Five Letters Schemes that he used. Even the simplest case law search would have identified that the exact materials he deployed had been previously rejected by this Court.

Resulting in;

[75] Mr. Potvin’s use of Three/Five Letters schemes creates the presumption that his foreclosure defence and counterclaim against the Royal Bank were, as a whole, conducted for an abusive and ulterior purpose.

2. Fee Schedules and Copyright in a Personal Name.

[76] Mr. Potvin, in his various materials, at times attempts to enforce “fee schedules”, a subclass of foisted unilateral agreements where an OPCA litigant produces a document that purports to unilaterally set penalties or fines for certain activities. Fee schedule claims are found in the November 20 and November 30, 2016 “Get Out Of Debt Free” documents, and ultimately Mr. Potvin based his $7,011,000.00 “Bill” and Counterclaim on his fee schedule.

[77] Mr. Potvin’s “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” also includes a fee schedule which purports to impose a range of fines, for example:

ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each occurrence for any aggravation of pre-existing conditions, permanent injury, scar, condition, or abnormality to my body or psyche by the actions or as a result of the actions or lack of action by neglect or design of peace/police officers, government principals, employees, agents, or justice system participants as determined by competent medical practitioner of my choosing or emergency medical technicians without delay

The “Notice” continues to state that Mr. Potvin has unilaterally claimed the right to convene his own courts, and use a Notary Public to enforce his fee schedule demands.

Notary Publics and their willingness to accommodate people like Potvin are a sore point for Judge Rooke. Way back in paragraph 25 he had harsh words to say about one;

[25] Disturbingly, the documents reproduced as Appendices “B-D” were witnessed and notarized by an Alberta Notary, Terry Leighton. Similarly, the document reproduced as Appendix “E” and the nonsense “Enduring Power of Attorney” between POTVIN and Potvin were witnessed and notarized by an Alberta lawyer, Rodney W. MacKenzie. Authentication of OPCA documents is a breach of a notary’s and lawyer’s professional obligations: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para 3; Meads v Meads, at para 645. Leighton stamped the documents he notarized “NO LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN/OFFERED”. That is no excuse, given that notarizing OPCA documents purportedly gives the materials special but illusionary authority which supercedes that of the court: Meads v Meads, at paras 273-275; Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII) at paras 113-124, 29 Alta LR (6th) 344. These materials and this judgment will be delivered to the Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Law Society of Alberta for their attention and response to this professional misconduct.

I wouldn't think that it's a career enhancer in Alberta to have one of the top judges of the Court of Queen's Bench rebuke you by name in a published judgment regarding your "professional misconduct" and send the file to the Attorney General to review your conduct. I'd guess that Terry and Rodney are going to have some "'splainin' to do!"

[80] In law (and simple common sense) a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts: Starr v Houlden, 1990 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 1366, 68 DLR (4th) 641. Intimidation is the natural consequence of Mr. Potvin’s illegal and unreasonable fee schedule demands. I therefore presume Mr. Potvin intended exactly that by using these strategies and issuing bills and a counterclaim on that basis.

[81] As for the idea of common law copyright in a personal name, as I indicated in Meads v Meads, at para 504, this concept has no basis in law, and “... has an overwhelmingly juvenile character.” In relation to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office registration, as I observed in Meads v Meads, at para 502, if anyone has an intellectual property in a personal name, it would be its authors - in this case Mr. Potvin’s parents, not him.

And Rooke rejected the idea that Potvin could copyright his bowel movements. Apparently they don't qualify as works of art;

[82] That said, Mr. Potvin perhaps might be able to assert some kind of intellectual property right over certain of his bodily emanations as a creative work. Though it is an admittedly interesting question, I do not believe I need to consider whether these bodily activities and their associated allegedly copyright-protected products would meet the threshold for an original work that is potentially subject to copyright, as defined by Chief Justice McLachlin in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13 (CanLII) at para 16, [2004] 1 SCR 339: “... to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment ...” and cannot “... be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise.”

I get the feeling that Rooke is judicially mocking Potvin.


3. The “Strawman” Duality

Judge Rooke has already demolished the strawman argument in other decisions, notably in;

Rothweiler v Payette
2018 ABQB 108
http://canlii.ca/t/hqf48

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11666

so he didn't go into great detail in this section;

[83] Another universally denounced pseudolaw concept is “Strawman” Theory: . . . “Strawman” Theory claims an individual has two parts, a physical human being component, and an immaterial but legal double. Pseudolaw gurus use many names to identify the latter, but I will refer to this part by one of its more common names: the “Strawman”. The way one tells these two aspects apart is by the letter case of their name. “Alfred Gerald Potvin” is the human half, while “ALFRED GERALD POTVIN” is the “Strawman”.

[84] “Strawman” Theory claims that human beings are born without a “Strawman”, but that nefarious government actors trick parents into obtaining a birth certificate, and that attaches the “Strawman” to the infant by a contract. In this scheme governments have no authority over humans, but instead must chain their authority through to the human via the “Strawman” and its secret contract.

[87] Mr. Potvin clearly subscribes to “Strawman” Theory. Though his initial documents do not make this distinction, in his October 2, 2017 Affidavit he distinguishes between himself and “FRED POTVIN”, who is the potential debtor. He then explicitly attempts to break the birth certificate contract with his “Strawman”:

As I have the right of Dissaffirm, I have resigned as agent of the all cap name, and any office of a political nature. Therefore, Please find enclosed the "Affidavit of Resignation as Agent/Claim of Right"/Right of disaffirm, defined as "To repudiate; to revoke a consent once given ; to recall an affirmance. To refuse one's subsequent sanction to a former act; to disclaim the intention of being bound by an antecedeut transaction." (Black's Law Dictionary) which severs the relationship between the flesh-and-blood man, and the corporate entity/NAME.

[90] Mr. Potvin’s attempts to use “Strawman” Theory creates the presumption that he litigates in bad faith and for an ulterior purpose.

4. Fractional Reserve Banking Theories

[93] A further OPCA misconception that is broadly spread through all of Mr. Potvin’s materials is that the practice of fractional reserve banking means that banks do not actually lend money, and therefore his mortgage is a fraud.
[94] This concept has been thoroughly examined and rejected in many Canadian decisions . . . .
[95] This anti-banking conspiracy theory is one part of the “Get Out Of Debt Free” Three/Five Letters documents used by Mr. Potvin, and is false, . . . . .

5. Promissory Notes are as Good as Cash

Potvin tried to pay off his mortgage with fake promissory notes that he claim extinguished the debt. The bank for some reason declined the offer to settle. So Potvin sued them to have the court force the bank to accept them with a rock solid citation, a Supreme Court of Canada decision;

[96] At various points in his materials Mr. Potvin claims to have paid his mortgage with promissory notes. This argument is best developed in the Potvin v Prowse T-83-18 Statement of Claim at paras 1-3:

The facts will prove that these private men and women so herein named in their private capacity, deliberately denied the truth to be revealed and by the inaction of their legislated Duty to Accommodate and by their failure to be recognizing and accepting lawful service of a lawful instrument called a promissory note have rejected a lawful attempt to pay the debt they allege is owing.

The defendants are in contempt of Supreme Court rulings (Bank of Canada vs Bank of Montreal, 1977 CanLII 36 (SCC), [1978]1 S.C. R. 1148- Date:1977-06-14) Judge Laskin - " ... A promise to pay a sum certain is money, in and of itself ... "

Except, except . . . .

[97] First, the The Bank of Canada v Bank of Montreal, 1977 CanLII 36 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 1148, 76 DLR (3rd) 385 passage only paraphrases the actual text. More importantly, the passage identified is from page 1154 of a dissent by Laskin CJ, so this passage is not a binding authority. Beyond that, this case deals with whether bank notes are promissory notes for the purposes of a claim to replace currency that had been destroyed in a fire. That is a very different situation than where a promissory note of any form is alleged the equivalent of cash. Instead, Bank of Canada v Bank of Montreal evaluates whether the money burnt in a fire (cash) was the equivalent of cash, and unsurprisingly, the Court majority concluded it was.

[98] As for the reliance on the quotation of Lord Denning from Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar, [1969] 2 All ER 150 at 152 (UK CA), the rule Mr. Potvin is purporting to extract from that case is not good law in the Commonwealth.

[100] This “a promise to pay is payment” promissory note is cash argument is, in any case, ridiculous, since the end result would be nothing more than “a conga line of promissory notes, each purporting to satisfy the debt of the note one step up the cue”: Re Boisjoli, at para 35.

[101] Mr. Potvin’s promissory note arguments are a further indication of his employing OPCA strategies in an abusive manner.

Now on to Part 2 where Belanger gets a free judicial review of the legal credibility of his religious based arguments on how to screw your creditors and break laws with impunity.

[Burnaby49]

Posting Part 2 - Where Belanger gets his ass handed to him by proxy.

Judge Rooke saved the best until last, a review of Belanger's CERI bullshit claims about how he and his church could force any government actor or other parties such as creditors to to kiss CERI followers' asses because of their supreme right to have any claimed religious beliefs accommodated without limit.

6. Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International Motifs

[102] In his more recent materials Mr. Potvin is obviously using material he sourced from the “Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International” or “CERI”. CERI members characteristically title themselves as “ministers”, with a lower-case “m”. In the Potvin v Rooke, Federal Court Docket T-1546-18 action Mr. Potvin specifically identifies himself as a member of CERI who operates out of his “CERI Ecclesia”.

[103] CERI is an Edmonton-based OPCA movement headed by a conman guru “minister” or “paraclete”, Edward Jay Robin Belanger: Meads v Meads, at paras 134-139, 183-188. Though members of CERI claim to be King James Bible literalists, this belief is an affectation, rather than real. For example, Belanger has formerly self-identified as a “Reformed Druid”. The chief focus of this group is use of pseudolaw to evade their legal obligations and to engage in criminal activities, often centered on marijuana trafficking, or driving in motor vehicles they claim are outside government regulation because those are “Ecclesiastical Pursuit Chariots”.

[104] Since there has not been a recent decision that addresses the pseudolegal theories advanced by CERI, this judgment is a useful point to review these concepts and why they have no legal merit.

And review he does! First one of Belanger's all-time favorites goes through the shredder.


a. The King James Bible and Coronation Oath

[105] Mr. Potvin’s materials at several points argues that the Coronation Oath sworn by Queen Elizabeth II and the preamble of the Charter has the effect of importing the King James Bible into Canadian law as a supraconstitutional authority.

[106] There is clear Court authority that the Coronation Oath is meaningless to the operation of Canadian law: Claeys v Her Majesty, 2013 MBQB 313 (CanLII) at paras 10-11, 28, 300 Man R (2d) 257; Law Society of British Columbia v Crischuk, 2017 BCSC 531 (CanLII) at paras 25, 28, 30-32; R v Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470 (CanLII) at paras 10-11; R v Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII) at para 31, 302 BCAC 76, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34331 (6 October 2011).

[107] Beyond that, it is clear in Canada that religious dictates do not have supraconstitutional status: . . . . (note - truckload of citations)

[108] The Charter preamble “supremacy of god” passage is essentially meaningless: . . .

[109] Thus, any claim that religious texts provide rules of law or are in some manner binding on the Court is universally rejected. A person who claims they are legally justified in ignoring laws they claim conflict with the King James Bible has no excuse for their breaking the law. The Bible is not the law of Canada, and the same goes for any other religious document.

b. The Necrophilic Necromantic CERI “Strawman”

[110] The CERI materials filed by Mr. Potvin use a variation on “Strawman” Theory specific to persons in that group. They claim that the “Strawman” is a “Person” and that, as strict King James Bible literalists, the King James Bible prevents them from having or associating with a “person”, or being a “respecter of persons”.

Rooke illustrated this with a citation of a Potvin rant on the topic;

[111] The Potvin v Prowse T-83-18 Statement of Claim expresses that concept this way:

The private men and women named in this statement of claim are committing Fraud against me (Section 380 and 336 Criminal code)

The fraud Lies in the alteration of my name to a dead corporate format for a financial purpose without my consent. That altered version of my name used without consent by these so named private men and women is referred to as a legal fiction, This representation of an all caps name is not me the man redeemed by the blood of Christ but is personation using my name and fleshly body for surety to create a security bond instrument for trading on the stock exchange by altering my name to a legal fiction* is used to increase the jurisdiction and convenience of the court and violates my faith in an attempted enforcement under duress and threat of harm, of a "debt" which doesn't exist, and in the refusal of my lawful offer to pay under protest of duress in full ... and by the threat of force, that I consent to be a "Person" and a "respecter of persons"

...

The private men and women named in this statement of claim have failed in their duty to accommodate by forcing me to be a "person" and a respecter of "persons". In so doing, they are deliberately, and knowingly attempting to make me break Gods law, as outlined in the KJB, which the Queen has sworn to uphold and defend. They have sworn an oath to Her Majesty Therefore, they are in breach of their own oaths, and laws, applicable to them. ... They must rebut my assertion that I am not a "person", consistent with my desire to obey GOD, and prove that I am a "person".

...

What God says about persons in the King James is relevant to this case ...that clearly says I am not to respect persons lest I fall under the conviction of the law .. Altering my name for a financial purpose turns it into a person and it has been used as a surety to create a security without my knowledge or consent

So, clearly, I am not, nor do I consent to be a person, nor will I be a respecter of Persons, as defined by your law, for to do so would place me in opposition to God, and being involved in commerce with a dead, or corporate entity is to be in commune with the dead, which is necromancy, and places me in Danger of Hellfire.

Potvin/Belanger got all this from a definition in Black's Law Dictionary;

[115] As usual in “Strawman” schemes, Mr. Potvin says he is not “a person”. In his Potvin v Prowse, T-83-18 Statement of Claim Mr. Potvin refuses to be or respect “Persons, as defined by your law”. “[Y]our law” is apparently Black’s Law Dictionary (no edition is specified), which Mr. Potvin cites for the definition of a “person”, which he says is:

An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. Also termed Fictitious person, juristic person, legal person, moral person

But Rooke pointed out that Potvin/Belanger was either too stupid to have realized that he used the wrong definition or that he did it deliberately hoping that nobody would notice;

[116] Again, as is usual for OPCA “Strawman” arguments, this statement is false. Not only is Mr. Potvin a person in Canadian law, if Mr. Potvin were to actually read Black’s Law Dictionary, he would find the definition of person is:

person. (13c) 1. A human being. - Also termed natural person.
(Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed) (2014) p 1324)

[117] What he is instead quoting is the definition for “Artificial Person”:

artificial person. (17c) An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain rights and duties of a human being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. ... Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral person. CF. LEGAL ENTITY.

And a little bit of mockery slips through yet again;

[119] Mr. Potvin’s materials include photos of tombstones with names in all upper case letters, that he says proves “that the all-capitalization form denotes a dead, corporate entity, AKA “Person””. There is nothing I can say in response except that is total nonsense.

[120] A “person” is not a “dead or corporate entity”. The word “person” captures human beings - “natural persons”, and artificial persons - such as corporations. Mr. Potvin is a person, no matter if his name is written alfred gerald potvin, Alfred Gerald Potvin, ALFRED GERALD POTVIN, or even AlFrEd GeRaLd PoTvIn.

Now to my favorite part where Rooke says that Potvin's sincere, deeply held religious beliefs are just bullshit and he's only using religion as part of his scam to get out of his mortgage.


c. Accommodation of Purported Religious Belief

[121] As indicated above, Mr. Potvin demands accommodation of his purported belief that taking responsibility for documents he signed and court orders which use the name “ALFRED POTVIN” is necromancy and necrophilia.

Rooke concedes that Potvin has a point about religious beliefs;

[122] Canadian case law and legislation in certain circumstances does create an obligation on certain actors to accommodate religious beliefs, . . . . Charter, s 2(a) states “Everyone has ... freedom of conscience and religion”. Religion is one of the enumerated grounds on which discrimination is prohibited: Charter, s 15.

But;

[123] However, a simple claim of religious belief is not what triggers these rights. Rather it is a “sincere religious belief” or “sincere non-religious belief” that is required: . . . .

So down to what Tricky Dick liked to call "nut-cutting time".

[125] Here Mr. Potvin has a very big problem. First, his litigation history does not support that his objection to having to pay for his mortgage has a religious basis. He started off with an entirely secular “Get Out Of Debt Free” Three/Five Letters scheme. Then he argued he owned copyright in his own name - in all capital letters - and had registered that with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (October 2, 2017 Affidavit). Then it was “kate of kaea”, and her nearly incomprehensible “LEGAL NAME FRAUD” (October 20, 2017 Affidavit). Next, Mr. Potvin became an acolyte (or at least subscriber) of Freeman, Allen Nelson Boisjoli (December 20, 2017 Affidavit). Finally, at last, he found religion, in the form of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International and its “minister” Belanger.

[126] The obvious implication from that progression is that that Mr. Potvin’s only interest is to find some pseudolaw key that will fit the foreclosure litigation lock and gift him a free house. I am sure he believes that the law does or should not apply to him, but that is a means to an end. He appears to be entirely mercenary in how he gets there.

[130] It gets worse for Mr. Potvin, at least if he were sincere in his beliefs. That October 2, 2017 Affidavit also attaches a Certificate of Registration of Copyright issued by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, registration number 1139531 and dated April 19, 2017, naming “Fred Potvin” as owner of “ALFRED GERALD POTVIN, FRED GERALD POTVIN, ALFRED POTVIN, POTVIN FRED GERARD, (and any and all variations.). If Mr. Potvin is indeed sincere in his CERI beliefs, then this registration “... places [him] in Danger of Hellfire ...”, as this certainly appears to be “... commerce with a dead, or corporate entity is to be in commune with the dead, which is necromancy ...”.

[131] One would imagine that Mr. Potvin would be in a hurry to prevent himself from eternal damnation, and would have cancelled, or at least transferred, Copyright registration 1139531. But no, a search of the Canadian Copyright Register reveals this registration is still active and indicates “Fred Potvin” of “109 Dovertree Place SE Calgary” is still the registered copyright holder of “ALFRED GERALD POTVIN” and assorted varients.

[132] A simpler explanation, and the one I adopt, is that Mr. Potvin could care less about the implications of being linked to his name in upper case letters, except to the degree that might purport to get him a free house and sue government, court, bank, police, and bank personnel for millions of dollars.

[133] I therefore have no difficulty concluding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Potvin’s claims of religious devotion that requires he avoid ALFRED GERALD POTVIN at all costs are a total fabrication, a flag of convenience under which he hopes to sail to success. Correspondingly, there is absolutely no requirement for any government actor or for that matter anyone to accommodate his demands relating to the King James Bible, dead corporate entities, and necrophilia.

[134] That goes for all “ministers” who claim to shelter from Canadian law via their purported adherence to CERI claims that God has forbidden them from involvement with their names in all upper case letters, or any other CERI “Strawman” nonsense. No person could reasonably hold these ideas as a religious belief. Following Fiander v Mills, I conclude this variation on “Strawman” theory is, like all the others, so notoriously bad that anyone advancing CERI-type OPCA arguments does so as an abuse of court, and that the presence of these motifs in an action creates a presumption that the litigant is in court for ulterior, abusive purposes. That includes Mr. Potvin.

This is a significant finding. Perhaps Belanger's biggest selling point to potential suckers was that if you professed a sincere belief in CERI's brand of Christianity you were invincible. You could order government authorities, courts, and creditors to do whatever you wanted because of their absolute legal requirement to accommodate whatever duties you claimed that your religious beliefs imposed on them. According to Belanger it was irrelevant when you saw the light. If you very conveniently became a CERI minister in the middle of foreclosure proceedings or when faced some other triggering point the authorities had to respect your newly professed beliefs and accommodate them exactly the same way as if you'd held these beliefs all of your life. This was very important since the bulk of Belanger's ministers seemed to have acquired their deeply held CERI Christian beliefs just when they were looking for loopholes to evade legal issues. Thomas Peterson became a Christian minister when the CRA was at his door demanding the taxes that he owed and Carol Volk signed up as a last desperate measure when foreclosure on her home was imminent. In both cases Belanger said, in his videos, that it was irrelevant that they were late to the vineyard. Their few, very few, accumulated hours of sincerely held CERI beliefs had to be respected and accommodated.

Judge Rooke has called bullshit on that one and has made a subjective analysis of the sincerity of claimed religious beliefs a valid part of the judicial review, an analysis where the claimed acquisition of the beliefs had to be considered within the context of the plaintiff/defendant's attempts to prevail on current legal issues. Rooke decided, on a subjective analysis, that Potvin did not hold sincere religious beliefs since he'd found religion when shopping about for legal weapons to use against his bank. He joined CERI only after numerous other abusive schemes that he'd tried had failed. The only genuine long-term sincere belief he held was his belief that he shouldn't have to pay back the bank.

So, from this point on Belanger's customers won't only be facing an analysis of whether their claimed beliefs give them the right to the relief they are demanding but will also be facing an analysis of whether they even hold these beliefs at all. If the answer is no then the issue of religious accommodation is irrelevant. Given the history of the CERI followers that I've written up over the past few years not many of his acolytes will get past this point to an actual review of how far the courts have to accommodate their Christian rights.

Rooke even expanded past this and said that no reasonable person would believe of Belanger's bullshit theories about how capitalization in documents is part of an actual religious article of faith. So it's irrelevant how long a person has been a CERI minister if the claimed beliefs espoused by CERI Are so ludicrous that they offended common sense. In other words Belanger's entire inventory of debt-dodging arguments.

Rooke also added a few extra "Indicia of Abusive Litigation" for good measure;

[138] Mr. Potvin seeks disproportionate, impossible remedies, such as the demands in the foreclosure action and counterclaim for $7 million in copyright infringement damages, and $10 million in punitive damages “for deceptive banking practices. Stating the obvious, his demands for $1 million every time someone uses his name is not merely disproportionate, but absurd.

[139] Mr. Potvin’s litigation includes scandalous and conspiratorial allegations against court decision makers. For example, his December 6, 2017 materials allege collusion between the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Masters and the Bank. His April 2, 2018 filings claims he will never get a fair hearing; judges and Masters of this Court are subject to instructions from the Government of Alberta - a shareholder and partner with the Bank.

[140] Further, Mr. Potvin’s litigation exhibits a pattern of expanding litigation, in which he raises new issues and includes new parties in his subsequent actions. Those who cross his path (or even do not cross his path, like me), are added to his latest lawsuits.

Resulting in;

V. Conclusion

[141] Review of Mr. Potvin’s court activities has identified him employing multiple OPCA concepts, including pseudolaw that creates a presumption that he litigates in bad faith. His activities include multiple additional indicia of abusive litigation. I therefore conclude it is appropriate for this Court on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction to investigate whether Mr. Potvin should be made subject to court access restrictions.

[142] I therefore give Mr. Potvin leave to provide to the Court, within 15 days of filing this Memorandum in the Court’s registry, written submissions:

1. as to whether he should be subject to court access restrictions in Alberta Courts, and
2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take.

[144] In the interim, I order that Mr. Potvin is prohibited from filing any material on any Alberta Court file except for the submissions identified above, and that Mr. Potvin may not continue or institute further court proceedings in Alberta without the leave of the Alberta Court in question . . . .

[145] The Court will, contemporaneous with this Memorandum, prepare and file, and provide to Mr. Potvin, the resulting Interim Court Access Restriction Order. Mr. Potvin’s approval of that Order is not required.

So what can we conclude from this? The obvious conclusion is that all of Belanger's legal theories, beliefs, his inventory of methods carefully devised to permit his followers to ignore the laws that bind the rest of us and to dishonour their debts, all painstakingly perfected through years of work, were totally discredited by this decision. Not just discredited but deemed abusive and vexatious. Belanger's had the rug pulled out from under him just before his own current criminal trials and has been forced to go into court naked, floundering to find some defense that his nemesis, the man called Rooke, hadn't already demolished.

Belanger posted this video on YouTube almost six years ago, rambling on about how Rooke had defamed him and his church;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV-iYSnV5AM&t=9s

An effort to set straight the defamatory words of a private man named John Rooke acting in his defacto Capacity as a Assistant chief Judge of the Alberta Courts who has defamed Christianity and group the men and women as the member of the body of Christ by false innuendo lies and associating our faith with commercial fraud and deception.....Blessings upon your comments based infact rather than assumption....Attacks on Christ and the ministry will be deleted....Good faith discourse is desired and expected,,,

Well the private man named John Rooke, acting in his defacto Capacity as an Assistant chief Judge of the Alberta Courts, patiently bided his time and, just on the eve of Belanger's two criminal trials, demolished all of his planned defenses. Good luck in court Paraclete!

[grixit]

Mr. Potvin’s claims of religious devotion that requires he avoid ALFRED GERALD POTVIN at all costs are a total fabrication, a flag of convenience under which he hopes to sail to success.

And just like that, Potvin finds himself under Admiralty jurisdiction!

[grixit]

In a future trial:

Plaintiff: I hold in my hand, the King James Bible!

Judge: I keep on my desk, The First Book of Rooke, "Meads", and the Second Book of Rooke, "Potvin"!

[eric]

Potvin also stuck a knife in the back of his fellow OPCA adherents by naming Rooke in his suit. They cannot simply dismiss this ruling anymore as Obiter Dictum as they do with Meads vs Meads.

[notorial dissent]

Verbose as it was that was true poetry. ACJ Rooke strikes again. One should not call down the lightening and not expect to get struck. You just know things are going to hell and gone when ACJ Rooke does a

[4] In light of this history, this Court now on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction will investigate whether court access restrictions are appropriate for this abusive litigant to manage and minimize his future litigation misconduct in Alberta Courts.

you just gotta know it ain't gonna end at all well for someone, and Rooke got a twofer on this one. Talk about maximizing judicial resources.

[bmxninja357]

And Rooke rejected the idea that Potvin could copyright his bowel movements. Apparently they don't qualify as works of art;

Its an outrage! Someone could butt pirate his works of shart.

Or...

This may literally make rooke a stick in the mud.

Pees
Ninj

[ArthurWankspittle]

Verbose as it was that was true poetry. ACJ Rooke strikes again. One should not call down the lightening and not expect to get struck.

There is quite a bit of "not a good idea to rail at the gods while wearing copper armour and standing on the top of a mountain in a thunderstorm", isn't there?
I also notice a triple Crawford. The original repo was for $22k and he now owes $165k.

[notorial dissent]

Verbose as it was that was true poetry. ACJ Rooke strikes again. One should not call down the lightening and not expect to get struck.

There is quite a bit of "not a good idea to rail at the gods while wearing copper armour and standing on the top of a mountain in a thunderstorm", isn't there?
I also notice a triple Crawford. The original repo was for $22k and he now owes $165k.

Kind of a case of gilding the lily so to speak. I have faith in his ability to blow through the residual of the sale and to enhance his fail. He really is that dumb and self destructive.

[Philistine]

Mr. Potvin’s claims of religious devotion that requires he avoid ALFRED GERALD POTVIN at all costs are a total fabrication, a flag of convenience under which he hopes to sail to success.

And just like that, Potvin finds himself under Admiralty jurisdiction!

Thanks Burnaby49 for another excellent detailed write up.
The above quote is what struck me as the funniest. I think the Dread Judge Rooke understands (heh) the movement so well that he can't help but amuse himself with wry humour such as the above metaphor.

[HardyW]

Mr. Potvin’s claims of religious devotion that requires he avoid ALFRED GERALD POTVIN at all costs are a total fabrication, a flag of convenience under which he hopes to sail to success.

And just like that, Potvin finds himself under Admiralty jurisdiction!

Thanks Burnaby49 for another excellent detailed write up.
The above quote is what struck me as the funniest. I think the Dread Judge Rooke understands (heh) the movement so well that he can't help but amuse himself with wry humour such as the above metaphor.

More thanks to Burnaby.

It's not surprising that Mr Potvin wants to avoid association with ALFRED GERALD POTVIN, not only a name in all caps but one whose letter count is 6,6,6. For it is written (possibly in the King James Version but it could have been David Icke or Anthony private attorney general Williams)

Be fearful of the Number of the BEAST; if any man shall appear to be of that kind thou shalt number all the names thereof; and when every character so numbered shall be of the capital kind and shall number six, six and again six, thou mayest declare that the man is a follower of the BEAST, which is also called Satan.

I seem to remember that the same was deduced about RONALD WILSON REAGAN. But no doubt that was just the work of Soviet trolls.

[Tevildo]

There is, of course, precedent for the artistic use of excrement - see Gilbert & George for a well-known example - but the creative element is the arrangement of the material in question on the canvas, not merely its production. That being said, does the "sweat of the brow (mutatis mutandis)" doctrine apply in Canada?

My favourite part of the judgement is "The Necrophilic Necromantic CERI “Strawman”" - I should point out that this is Judge Rooke's phrase, not that of our esteemed moderator. It might have been entertaining to explore Potvin's argument that he's being forced to engage in necrophilia (not merely necromancy), but perhaps inappropriate for serious legal writing.

[Burnaby49]

My favourite part of the judgement is "The Necrophilic Necromantic CERI “Strawman”" - I should point out that this is Judge Rooke's phrase, not that of our esteemed moderator. It might have been entertaining to explore Potvin's argument that he's being forced to engage in necrophilia (not merely necromancy), but perhaps inappropriate for serious legal writing.

Given the astounding idiocy of this entire lawsuit I'd question whether the phrase "serious legal writing" applies to the judgment. Rooke seemed to agree, at least to some extent. He seemed to enjoy having some fun at Potvin's expense. Thinking up discussion titles like "The Necrophilic Necromantic CERI “Strawman” indicates a somewhat unserious approach. Having said that the judge's analysis is entirely sound and certainly appeal proof given the complete lack of any legal basis for any and all of Potvin's demands.

[Tevildo]

Given the astounding idiocy of this entire lawsuit I'd question whether the phrase "serious legal writing" applies to the judgment.

Oh, of course.
There's one thing I've realized I don't know - is "Judge Rooke" the correct way of referring to him? In England, he'd be "Mr Justice Rooke" (Rooke J) - what is the Canadian equivalent?

[Burnaby49]

Given the astounding idiocy of this entire lawsuit I'd question whether the phrase "serious legal writing" applies to the judgment.

Oh, of course.
There's one thing I've realized I don't know - is "Judge Rooke" the correct way of referring to him? In England, he'd be "Mr Justice Rooke" (Rooke J) - what is the Canadian equivalent?

He's addressed in the courtroom as 'your Honour'. Outside the court I assume Associate Chief Justice Rooke.

[BoomerSooner17]

No, the game is over and Satan and his Harlot (Legal Cronus, Commerce Crone/CROWN) lost all games where all "law" was, and is, church based where court is simply a sin-o-name for church [...] Your soul is on the line/lien while your sins/signs are on the lien/line....

It took me a minute to realize that by "sin-o-name" he meant "synonym." That has to be the most idiotic made-up homophone that I've ever seen, although the others shown above come pretty close.

[Burnaby49]

The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta's relentless campaign of denying OPCA-Freeman litigants their god-given rights to abuse the court system has claimed another victim. Alfred Potvin has been declared a vexatious litigant.

[19] I therefore, on my own motion, and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, order effective immediately that:

1. Alfred Gerald Potvin is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding:

(i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and

(ii) on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate,
without an order for leave of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted.

2. Alfred Gerald Potvin must describe himself, in any application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “Alfred Gerald Potvin”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

3. Any application for leave by Alfred Gerald Potvin will only be accepted if Alfred Gerald Potvin is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Alfred Gerald Potvin in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

4. Subject to paragraph 14 hereof, and otherwise in accord with the Court of Appeal’s normal process, to commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alfred Gerald Potvin must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and

(i) The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceedings is justified.

(ii) The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages.

(iii) The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding.

(iv) If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it.

(v) The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing, or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

(vi) If the single appeal judge grants Alfred Gerald Potvin leave to commence an appeal, Alfred Gerald Potvin may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of this Order restricting Alfred Gerald Potvin’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Alfred Gerald Potvin proposes to file;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed appeal, application, or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that it is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; and

d) indicating whether Alfred Gerald Potvin has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars.

5. Subject to paragraph 14 hereof, to commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Alfred Gerald Potvin shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, respectively, or his or her designate:

(i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.

(ii) Any application shall be made in writing.

(iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Alfred Gerald Potvin’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Alfred Gerald Potvin proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Alfred Gerald Potvin has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

(iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if he or she so chooses, to:

(1) the potentially involved parties;
(2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and
(3) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) decide the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

6. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards.

7. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.

8. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.

9. Alfred Gerald Potvin is prohibited from:

(i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any Alberta court, except on his own behalf; and

(ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representation in court proceedings,

before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal.

10. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Alfred Gerald Potvin, unless:

(i) Alfred Gerald Potvin is a named party in the action in question, and

(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Alfred Gerald Potvin has been granted leave pursuant to this Order to take that step by the Court.

11 No information shall be received by a Justice from Alfred Gerald Potvin per Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 504, 507.1 unless Alfred Gerald Potvin is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Alfred Gerald Potvin in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

12. All fee waivers granted to Alfred Gerald Potvin by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked.

13. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Alfred Gerald Potvin unless Alfred Gerald Potvin has a court order which authorizes same.

14. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts.

15. The approval of Alfred Gerald Potvin as to the form and content of this Order is not required.

Potvin (Re)
2018 ABQB 834
http://canlii.ca/t/hvg9d

Now that's what I call really putting the boots in. It's like Associate Chief Justice Rooke really, really doesn't want to see Potvin in his courtroom again, ever. Not that any of us didn't see it coming after the prior decision I reported in this discussion. Queen's Bench has decided to go scorched earth on OPCA litigants and not only deny them their demands in their vexatious legal proceedings but deny them the right to come back to try again. Potvin is an excellent example of what can happen if the court isn't proactive in this area. He went to court with one goal, to get his legally binding, voluntarily undertaken debts negated and he didn't care what he pleaded in his attempts to do this. In his shotgun approach he tried, and court rejected;

Three/Five Letters Schemes
Fee Schedules and Copyright in a Personal Name
The “Strawman” Duality
Fractional Reserve Banking Theories
Promissory Notes are as Good as Cash
The King James Bible and Coronation Oath
The Necrophilic Necromantic CERI “Strawman”
Accommodation of Purported Religious Belief

And, had he been allowed to continue, he would have been back again and again with more idiotic OPCA legal theories. Obviously there is no end to the various arguments that vexatious litigants can utilize to overwhelm the courts with nonsensical pleadings. There's no natural limit to stupidity. Queen's Bench was apparently getting overwhelmed by this garbage hence the brass-knuckle approach to handling them. I currently have a few more "inherent jurisdiction" vexatious litigant decisions I'll report as soon as the decisions show up on CanLII.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Thanks for the update

[Burnaby49]

Potvin was just an amateur at impenetrable gibberish. One of the targets of a pending post also threw David Wynn Miller into the mix;

As best I can evaluate this item, I conclude this is a “judgment” of a purported US court, the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT”, issued on November 26, 2016 by “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-JUDGE: David-Wynn: Miller. The “judgment” is followed by a “:STUDY-GUIDE” which seems to indicate a strange kind of grammar. For example:

~4 = PRONOUNS = FOR THE SINGLE-ONE-WORD; FOR AN ADJUCTIVE-PRONOUN-OPINION OF THE FACT CHANGES WITH THE FACT INTO THE PRONOUN; FOR AN ADVERB-CONNECTS TO THE PRONOUN BEFORE AND ADVERB.

[19] The remaining ten pages are the Knutson MCAP mortgage, but that document has been annotated. Each page is marked in thick felt marker “:EVIDENCE:” and stamped with a legend:

:Syntax-word-key-meaning:
1=Adverb 8=Past-time
2=Verb 9=Future-time
3=Adjective 0=Conjunction
4=Pronoun NC=No-Contract

and is sometimes annotated with other text, such as “:STYLES-Boxing=:OMIT-VOID-CONTENT-FRAUD-SYNTAX-GRAMMER”. All words are then individually annotated with a hand-written number, which appears to correspond to the stamped legend.

[20] Though my analysis of the meaning of this peculiar item is hampered by its perplexing nature, I conclude the function of the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” decision and attached annotated mortgage document is that the mortgage contract is being proofread using an abnormal grammar code. The failure of MCAP to format its documents according to this outlandish linguistic system allegedly means the contract is void and fraudulent.

Unfortunately Queen's Bench chose not to seriously address Miller's innovative approach to legal scholarship;

[25] The “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” decision I have reviewed and “Judge” Miller’s statements to Judge Meyer only hint at scope of Miller’s bizarre claims. For example, Wollongong City Council v Falamaki, [2010] NSWLEC 66 reports representation by “plenipotentiary judge David-Wynn Miller”, who shared “a little secret” with the Court: “Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract.” That insight is “astonishing”, or, in “Millerese”, “no contract”.

[26] Not surprisingly, the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” decision purchased by Knutson from Miller was of no legal effect. On March 6, 2017 Gill J dismissed Knutson’s appeal and ordered that Knutson must vacate the mortgaged property by March 20, 2017.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Our British loonies do not show the same mastery of gibberish and our judges do not show the same level of quite rational frustration with it.