Judge Rooke Files Lawsuit Against Christian Minister!!!

[Burnaby49]

And totally crushed a devout man of God with help from Fuhrer!!!"

No, not that one, not THE FUHRER, but Madam Justice Fuhrer of the Federal Court of Canada.

However the title to this discussion is correct in that the Honourable John D. Rooke, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta did indeed filed a lawsuit against a Christian minister. Well, if you are willing to accept that Paraclete Belanger's imaginary church, The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International "CERI", is an actual legitimate church and that attaining the designation of CERI minister, a title that Belanger apparently bestows like party favours on anyone who asks for one, actually makes people legitimate Christian ministers. Judge Rooke himself had disagreed with both of these points in an earlier case I'll refer to later in this posting.

In the real world of legal consequences CERI is recognized nowhere outside of Belanger's fantasies. However that in no way impedes him from claiming that being designated a CERI minister bestows an absolute religious immunity to life's little legal and financial difficulties. The legal difficulties that Belanger has claimed are magically eliminated through his religious protection encompass a range of offenses from traffic tickets to rape. The financial difficulties have largely involved mortgages that people can't, or won't, repay and people being harassed by their credit card companies. It's Belanger's claim that becoming a CERI minister gives his followers the power to demand unlimited Charter-based religious accommodation. No matter what they claim as a religious belief it has to be allowed by Canada's various levels of government because the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms allows limitless religious rights to debt deadbeats and criminals. It's all right here;

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
• (d) freedom of association.

Although I have to say that Belanger's religious legal immunity belief isn't as explicitly spelled out in the Charter as he might wish, at least as far as I can see. Instead it's a very creative 'read between the lines' interpretation of the document. CERII doctrine includes the very convenient belief that, because of the Charter provision shown above, no laws, either statutory or common law, apply to CERI ministers unless they are willing to agree that such laws apply to them. So all you have to do as a CERRI minister is say that you don't agree to be bound by a law (say a common law mortgage contract you signed that your bank is being unpleasant about) and Belanger's fantasy of unlimited accommodation makes it so. And you don't even have to go through the hard work of studying to become one of his ministers! Belanger doesn't require that his ministers actually know anything about CERI doctrine. Just wanting to be one of his ministers is sufficient to earn you the designation. He's also been careful to point out that you don't have to have shown any previous commitment before he instantly proclaims you as one of his legally invincible flock of ministers. I suppose, as Matthew 20, 1-16 tells us, it doesn't matter how late you get to the vineyard, you still get your denarius.

However, even with those rock-solid Charter protections, the rapist somehow remained in jail, traffic tickets were not cancelled, the mortgages all ended up in foreclosure and eviction, and the banks kept winning their lawsuits against Belanger's deadbeat ministers. The overall net result in the twenty or so year Belanger has been promoting CERI magic is a fairly dismal success rate of approximately 0.00%. That has in no way diminished Belanger's enthusiasm. For an entirely typical CERI failure check out the Volk's discussion where Belanger laboured mightily defending the Volk's Charter-guaranteed sacred religious right to default on their mortgage. Belanger conned them into believing that they could use the divine power of being a CERI minister (they were a very, very late to the vineyard couple) to force their bank to forgive the debt instead of foreclosing. Unfortunately they were foreclosed and evicted anyhow. Belanger blamed the Volks for not having enough faith, a stance I think a touch hypocritical given that he does not require that his Ministers show or profess any faith.

Carol & Rod Volk: CERI “Minister” Belanger’s Latest victims
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123

and you can read about the rapist minister here;

Rapist claims that Belanger’s Church exempts him from prosecution!
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11987&sid=36fa93b8 ... de9bf5ea2a

The CERI minister currently facing Judge Rooke's wrath is an individual I've discussed before in Quatloos, a man who started the litigation ball rolling by suing Judge Rooke first, or would have sued Judge Rooke if his statement of claim had made a lick of sense. I'm of course referring to Minister David Williams. Williams lives in Ontario and is, or was, homeless. He decided to rectify that problem by breaking into an old vacated school and squatting. When authorities started moving to get him out he suddenly found religion and became a CERI minister. Through the wonders of CERI magic this transformed Williams from a homeless illegal squatter into a minister of God tending to an imaginary congregation. Since he required a church in which to perform his non-existent ecclesiastical duties the school somehow, apparently by CERI divine right, became Williams' legal property. All perfectly legal because of his Charter-sanctified religious accommodation rights, at least as CERI interprets them. If I recall (I'm not going to look it up) the Volks had the same argument. The moment they became CERI ministers their house, previously a private domicile, became a church and the center of their ministry. This made it, and them, immune from any civil action by godless mortgage-holding banks because the banks can't act against a man of God performing his ecclesiastical duties.

Nothing self-serving about this at all, Williams was truly, really, born again. It was just that by great good fortune his sudden unexpected and totally sincere conversion was into a religion that allowed him to break whatever laws he claimed violated his professed beliefs with complete impunity. So when authorities continued action against Williams regardless of his clear evidence of religious immunity he fought back by filing a lawsuit naming just about everyone except the man on the Clapham Omnibus as defendants. I wrote it up here;

Williams v Payette - Another Disaster For Belanger & CERI
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11996&p=278123

Judge Rooke was one of those named in the defendant's list but the incomprehensible statement of claim did not give any reason why he was listed nor did it link him to any specific claimed offense. So he was in the clear regardless of how the lawsuit worked out because, as the court said;

simply naming the judicial defendants in the style of cause does not amount to a cause of action

Things didn't go well for Williams. One problem was that the court, stuck in a rut trying to administer actual law, couldn't comprehend how being a CERI minister gave Williams such vast powers, a matter that obviously needed some explaining. However, as I've previously noted, CERI ministers seem to be totally deficient in their knowledge of the doctrine of their own church. So Williams demanded that he be allowed to enter an expert witness at trial to explain CERI beliefs on his behalf. His designated expert was to be Belanger himself, probably the only living person who truly understands CERI doctrine since he's the man who made it all up. Sadly the case was tossed out for being vexatious incomprehensible garbage without even a single court hearing.

Having failed to sue judge Rooke the first time around Williams has been trying incessantly since. His second lawsuit, which went after Rooke directly, was written up here;

Minister Belanger Sues Judge Rooke!
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11861

I titled the discussion after Belanger although the case name was Williams v Rooke because David Williams is really nothing more than Belanger's cannon-fodder in his ongoing grudge against Rooke. Belanger is afraid to initiate legal proceedings against Rooke in his own name so he had Williams act as the chief plaintiff in the lawsuit while he modestly followed behind as a co-plaintiff along with a gang of other CERI ministers. The listed plaintiffs were;

minister Catherine Edith [Fraser]
minister David: Williams,
minister Edward-Jay-Robin [Belanger],
minster (sic) Richard Gerald: Patterson, and
minister Timothy Brian Charles [Pasula]

There's no reported decision on this case because it was tossed by the court for being total garbage and never made it to a formal conclusion. Technically the statement of claim was 'removed from the record" as if it had never existed. So, without a case name or decision, I'll call it Williams 2. The claim in Williams 2 was that Judge Rooke had defamed and libeled the plaintiffs in two reported decisions, The famed Meads v Meads;

Meads v. Meads
2012 ABQB 571
http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq

and this one that I've given an extensive write-up on Quatloos;

Alfred Potvin - Belanger's Sock Puppet screws Belanger in Court
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11817&p=268953

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

Belanger had his useful idiot Williams file both Williams v Payette and Williams 2 in the Federal Court of Canada, a specialized court dealing with only Canadian federal government non-criminal statutory legislation, things such as immigration issues and appeals from Tax Court decisions. The Federal Court's jurisdiction does not include torts or civil law, a bit of a problem in both of these cases since they involved civil tort issues. I'm guessing that Belanger's fondness for the Federal Court is because the correct venue for these cases would be the provincial courts and, in Alberta that would be either the Provincial Court of Alberta or Alberta's Queen's Bench, both of which would immediately squash Belanger or Williams as flat as a frog under a bus tire.

So why, given that both of these cases were, at least nominally, filed by Williams, do I say that Belanger is directing all this while hiding behind Williams' skirts?

In the case I'm reviewing in this discussion, Rooke v Williams, the court noted that the basis of Williams' various actions was an attack on Judge Rooke's monumental judgment in Meads v Meads, a case in which Williams, an Ontario resident, was not a party to either directly or indirectly.

[9] Before Justice Heneghan ordered the First Statement of Claim struck, the Respondent filed another Statement of Claim in December 2018 [Second Statement of Claim], ostensibly on his own behalf and that of several other ministers of the Church of Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI] but solely against the Applicant in the matter before me. It is clear from the Second Statement of Claim that the Plaintiffs targeted Associate Chief Justice Rooke for his decision in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads]. Among other things, the Plaintiffs sought the repeal of portions of Meads or redaction of references to CERI and its ministers, a formal written apology from the Defendant, and his removal and disqualification as a judge. They also sought “total damages in the amount of twenty five million Canadian dollars (150,000,000.00). [sic.]” versus “additional damages in the amount of $100,000,000.00 Canadian dollars” sought in the First Statement of Claim.

Rooke v. Williams
2020 FC 1070
http://canlii.ca/t/jbwm4

Williams 2 was a lawsuit in respect to comments in Meads and Potvin however both decisions were released before he became a CERI minister and he was not a party, directly or indirectly, in either of them nor was he named in them. So why would he initiate lawsuits against Judge Rooke personally in respect to comments in these cases?

However if you're looking for an individual eager to sue Rooke I can think of another party who has been constantly, bitterly, fulminating against both Judge Rooke and Meads v Meads since the decision was released in 2012. An individual who lives in Alberta under the jurisdiction of Queen's Bench and who personally, along with the multitudes of his ordained ministers, has been directly and very adversely affected by Meads but who apparently hasn't the courage to go to court himself and confront Rooke personally;

Step right up Paraclete Belanger! No need to be shy!

I suppose I can see his point. When his sock-puppets invariably lose he can blame it on their incompetence, claiming that they'd screwed up in court. That was certainly his approach with the Volks whom he led into foreclosure then threw under the bus. But he knows that if he goes to court himself the results will be no different. He'll lose exactly the same as his dummies and that would be devastating for his CERI scam since he's the one who invented it and if he can't win with it in court nobody can. Perhaps he's still quailing from the trauma he suffered from the savage mauling Alfred Potvin received at the hands of Judge Rooke when he argued CERI bullshit at Queen's Bench.

Potvin was a very late labourer in the vineyard, he had his religious epiphany and became an ordained CERI minister just before the court hearing. He'd been tirelessly trying to avoid repaying his mortgage but his prior line of defense, downloading masses of sovereign gibberish from the internet and puking it out in court, had failed him completely. So he decided it was time to rely on Jesus to get the job done. Judge Rooke must have thought he'd hit the jackpot at Vegas!

[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.

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.

Bit of a digression there but it isn't often that I get a chance to write about Belanger's CERI idiocy any more. However the above does give a history of Belanger's increasingly desperate attempts to use Williams to attack Judge Rooke and try to salvage something from the disastrous shambles of prior CERI litigation.

It's late at night and I've been working on this posting while also working on a fridge full of Steamworks Kolsch with Bob Dylan's Theme Time Radio Hour on the headsets. Time for bed. I'll do a reset on Rooke's revenge with a separate post.

[Burnaby49]

Ok, where were we? Right. David Williams, Belanger's hapless crash test dummy, had been trying to haul Judge Rooke into court for multiple egregious violations of Williams' claimed CERI religious rights. As related he's filed, and lost, two cases at the Federal Court of Canada which, as also previously noted, does not have the jurisdiction to provide any relief Williams has demanded.

Normally that would be the end of that line of attack but, as related in the prior post, Belanger is obsessed by the savage mauling his idiotic religious accommodation arguments have received at the hands of Judge Rooke. So, disregarding previous losses, Williams has relentlessly pressed on continuing his campaign at Federal Court to rehabilitate Belanger and disgrace Rooke. This leads to our current case. Judge Rooke finally had enough of Belanger's bullshit and counter-attacked by petitioning the Federal Court to shut Williams up by having him declared a vexatious litigant.

[1] The Applicant is Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of the Province of Alberta. The Respondent is a Christian minister of the Church of Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI]. The Applicant seeks to prohibit the Respondent from instituting further proceedings in the Federal Court, or continuing proceedings previously instituted by him, except with leave of the Court: section 40 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7. I agree with the Applicant that, in the circumstances of the matter before me, the Respondent has both instituted vexatious proceedings persistently and conducted proceedings vexatiously. I therefore grant this Application and declare the Respondent a vexatious litigant, for the reasons that follow.

The Federal Court of Canada used to grant vexatious litigant declarations very rarely but since it became the court of choice for sovereign types with their demented endless filings it has, in my observation, become far more pro-active about nailing idiots like Williams. Belanger too, if he ever works up enough courage to stick his head above the parapet.

The court gave a background to William's current attempt which showed that Williams was MIA throughout the entire process;

II. Background

[2] Shortly after the Applicant filed the Notice of Application in February 2020, the Applicant attempted twice to serve the Respondent personally. Because those attempts were unsuccessful, the Applicant forwarded the Notice of Application to the Respondent by email, twice to each of the Respondent’s gmail.com and zoho.com email addresses. The Applicant also obtained the July 6, 2020 Order of Prothonotary Aalto for substituted service under Rule 136 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

[3] The Respondent did not file a Notice of Appearance nor communicate to either the Applicant’s counsel or the Court any intention to appear in this matter. The Respondent wrote to the Court, however, to dispute service of the “Claim.” The letter, which is dated one week after the Notice of Application was filed, lists a street address that corresponds with one of the addresses at which the Applicant attempted to serve the Respondent personally. I therefore am prepared to infer the Application came to the Respondent’s attention. Further, the Applicant provided the Respondent with a copy of the Applicant’s Requisition for Hearing in accordance with the July 6, 2020 Order for substituted service. The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Substitute service is a way of serving court papers on someone who can't be found for direct service. Once in court I saw an application for substitute service approved when a rich debtor, living in an upper-end high-security residential block, suddenly disappeared when plaintiff tried to serve papers. He was going about his business but with enough security and stealth to avoid being personally served. So the court approved substitute service by giving the papers to the doorman at the residential block. This was legally equivalent to serving personally and it didn't matter if the debtor ever saw the papers or not, he was deemed served.

The court didn't think much of the letter noted in paragraph 3 above;

[4] I note the letter purports to be from “DAVID WILLIAMS Living Estate Trust. Office of the General Executor. David of the Williams, General Executor/Trustee.” Further, the letter asserts that the writer is the General Executor of the DAVID WILLIAMS Estate and the DAVID WILLIAMS Living Estate Trust and that the writer has “full Power of Attorney, Executorship, and Trusteeship over the Trust and Estate and to act on behalf of DAVID WILLIAMS.” In addition, the writer purports to “operate the Trust, Estate, and DAVID WILLIAMS [himself, in other words] without liability and that without recourse under the Trust.” Like allegations in the Statements of Claim discussed below, these assertions are nonsensical. In my view, they represent, together with the Respondent’s denial of service and non-appearance at the hearing, an unsuccessful effort to shield the Respondent somehow from the consequences of his actions including the outcome of this Application.

That paragraph ended on an ominous note.

Paragraphs 5 to 8 are a review of Williams v Payette. Paragraphs 9 to 11 cover Williams 2. However, after that case was trashed Williams just kept going;

[12] For at least one year following Justice Heneghan’s disposition involving the First Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff continued to correspond with/harry the Court on the matter necessitating at least eight Directions of Justice Heneghan and Prothontaries Tabib and Molgat. On at least two occasions, Justice Heneghan underscored that the Court was functus officio (i.e. having fulfilled its mandate, the Court has no further role), to little or no avail. The most recent Direction, rejecting four letters from the Plaintiff/Respondent, issued in July 2020 in respect of both the earlier matter and the one before me.

So time to stop him;

[17] Though the Federal Courts Act does not define what constitutes “vexatious” behaviour, Section 40 is aimed at litigants who bring proceedings for improper purposes, such as inflicting damage or wreaking retribution on the parties or the Court. It also is aimed at ungovernable litigants who flout procedural rules (thus requiring greater gatekeeping by the Court), ignore Court orders and directions, and attempt to re-litigate already decided issues and matters: Olumide, above at para 22. These are some of the hallmarks of vexatiousness, along with the parties sued, the nature of the allegations against them, and the language used: Olumide, above at para 32.

[18] Further, Section 40 may apply whether a party brings multiple proceedings, or conducts a single proceeding, vexatiously: Olumide, above at para 25. A declaration that a party is vexatious does not bar the litigant’s access to the Court but rather represents a need to regulate access because of previous conduct – the vexatious litigant requires leave (i.e. permission) to start or continue a proceeding.

[19] Finally, although the Applicant bears the burden of proving vexatiousness, the Respondent needed to offer highly credible evidence to resist this Application in light of the previous findings of this and other Courts: Olumide, above at para 38. The Respondent did not file any evidence or make any substantive submissions, having chosen not to participate in the Application.

[20] Based on the Applicant’s evidence and submissions, I find the Respondent’s pattern of behaviour in his interactions with the judicial system includes, among others, the following hallmarks of vexatiousness:

- Failure to observe Federal Courts Rules;

- Unwarranted challenges to Applicant’s representation by counsel (“alleged representatives”) and materials filed by his counsel (“that paperwork violates my faith”);

- Baseless accusations against the Applicant (for example, stating in a December 30, 2018 Notice to the Court and Notice to You: “I am aware of continued misconduct of a Federal judicial participant and defendant J.D Rooke (defendant) who is deliberately and negatively influencing and pre-prejudice and predispose and poison the judiciary and the courts while at the same time manufacturing evidence to his benefit”);

- Repeated attempts to continue litigation and file material, ultimately rejected, at a time when the Court was functus; and

- -Association with “minister Alfred [Fred] Potvin,” a CERI minister declared a vexatious litigant by the Applicant, as well as the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal: Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834; unreported March 1, 2019 Order of Justice Mosley on Federal Court File T-1546-18; Potvin v Rooke, 2019 FCA 285.

That last one is of interest because it indicated that Potvin and Williams have been acting together against Judge Rooke. A point this judgment considered in more detail

[21] Regarding the latter point, a side-by-side comparison of the First Statement of Claim with the Statement of Claim filed by minister Alfred [Fred] Potvin in Federal Court File T-1546-18 discloses that the documents are substantially the same including structure, headings and text, except for the facts outlined in the Introduction. That said, both Plaintiffs allege being arrested in their described chronology of events resulting in the Claim. Further, the Defendants overlap and include the Applicant in his “private, individual capacity.”

Leading to;

[22] Based on the background and applicable law and principles outlined above, I am satisfied that the Respondent “has persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or has conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner,” within the meaning of Section 40 of the Federal Courts Act. I therefore grant the Application.

Not up to the standards for vexatious litigant designations that Judge Rooke himself would have doled out at Queen's Bench but it will do to stop Belanger from using Williams as an alter ego at Federal Court. However one request Judge Rooke made in his applications is straight fantasy;

[23] At the hearing, the Applicant requested costs in the amount of $8,000. The Applicant submitted his bill of costs subsequent to the hearing, at the Court’s request. The costs fall in the range of $7,000-10,000, with reference to columns III, IV and V of Tariff B. Having regard to the Applicant’s bill of costs, I find the requested amount reasonable in the circumstances. Exercising my discretion under Rule 400(4) of the Federal Court Rules, I therefore award the Applicant the lump sum of $8,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, in lieu of assessed costs, payable forthwith to the Applicant.

Good luck collecting that eight grand Judge!

So, minister Belanger, isn't it time you stopped using these incompetent sock-puppets and went after Judge Rooke yourself at Queen's Bench? What have you got to lose? After the disastrous defeats your pathetic underlings have suffered at court CERI is already totally discredited. If you're only willing to hide timidly behind proxies, too fearful to step up and personally defend your self-invented religion that you lead and totally control, why should anyone believe it's anything but a worthless amateurish scam that you promote for your own benefit? Lead from the front for once! That is, if you actually believe this bullshit.

[notorial dissent]

Calling anything having to do with the paracyte or his followers "organized" is kind of an exercise in the ridiculous and fantastical I think.