Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International

[Dr. Caligari]

Even in the case of libel per se, a truthful statement is not libelous. US and Canadian law agree on that point; the difference between the two legal systems is who has the burden of proof.

[JamesVincent]

One of the things that have gotten me everytime I see or hear the words "libel" and "slander" or the various threats of "defamation suit" that show up on Quatloos everytime someone gets their panties in a bunch. If I say that someone is a poor businessman then that is my opinion. My opinion may very well be influenced by my interpretation of "facts" that have been presented, both pro and con, but it is still an opinion. If someone calls someone else a "whackass" after a presentation of "facts" then that is an opinion. Now, at least to me, accusing someone of being a pedophile, and there are no facts to support that, then that is grounds for a defamation suit. Even an accusation like that can destroy someone's life in every aspect. Telling someone that they have no clue what they are talking about, after presenting "facts" that support that accusation, not so much.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Y'know what sucks?

Mismatched socks. And I mean really mismatched socks. Red and black. Mauve and puce. Sooner or later, someone is going to look at your feet. Pumps, heels, loafers - it doesn't matter. Someone notices your socks are different colours.

What else sucks?

Talking at a computer for 13 minutes and then, days later, realizing you forgot to turn on the microphone.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8zHq6f3jq8

Whoops!

Well, I guess it could have been worse. Could have had auto spell correct your name into "parakeet Belanger".

(Tweet tweet.)

(Twitter twitter.)

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

It's not all downside; this way I can pretend he's making sense. Well I could if I wasn't so distracted by his computer monitor reflecting off his glasses.

So, in a very basic video, he left out the sound and turned his glasses into searchlights. After all the videos he's done you'd think he'd have at least a marginally competent ability to produce them.

[notorial dissent]

Why??? Has he ever shown any indications of being even "marginally competent".

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

minister Belanger / “cudgel” has been engaged in a flurry of video posts on his Youtube site (http://www.youtube.com/user/Owlmon). I decided to review these with the assistance of an appropriate beverage or two:

• Person and Citizen trap words in coming out of Babylon 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abMKIE1bG6s) - the title, sadly, is a tease, the good minister makes no mention of the classic science fiction television series. It’s the same old “person means corporation” thing based around an incorrect understanding of the word “includes”. There is some fun stuff: he explains that Jewish lawyers write most legislation (7:30), announced homosexuality and abortion is illegal (9:45-10:00) – but the best bit is about legal taxes. The minister explains at 11:00-14:00 that the only biblically sanctioned tax is a small annual payment of silver Jews are required to pay for Temple maintenance – and therefore that is all the CRA can claim. Take that, Tax Drones!
  
  How to open up a Bank Account with no government ID numbers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD6lBmcodg) - largely a narrative on how if you claim it’s against your religious beliefs to have a government ID number you can go into a bank, request, and receive an account without that data. Belanger goes on at some length on particular scenarios. I especially liked his tales of how all that was necessary in one instance was to show driver’s licences with a finger positioned to cover up the forbidden number. As long as the name and photo were visible? There’s your bank account! This approach can also stop the CRA from seizing your savings, if you hold them in trust for the Church. This video also features a malfunctioning webcam that alternately zooms in and out of Belanger’s face. Really needs a Max Headroom background, though.
  
  More on establishing your faith in Christ to remove the assumptions of false god judges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwyZfaNCgnw) - now this one is fun! The good minister, in a reclining pose, kind of meanders about in his explanation of how he has blocked action by judges, and how he has privately met with and taught his ideas to a senior judge-to-be. He’s also really annoyed by lousy Logitech webcam products. “A man named Rooke”, “a black robed demon”, is a particular target for criticism, but minister Belanger does agree that Freemen, UCC types, etc are wrong, but that Belanger has a valid Christ-based defence. The neat part of this video is an innovation that Belanger plans to use – embracing the technology of the future! – to serve notice of his foisted unilateral declarations. Paper? Nope – old fashioned. Instead:
  
  • 1. Create a video version of the usual “prove me wrong” stuff.
    
    2. Upload that onto Youtube as a private video that can only be viewed by a specific link not made public
    
    3. Write the target, saying that you have uploaded a potentially defamatory video onto Youtube. If you want to view it, Mr./Ms. target, view it at this link. Naturally this will induce the target to rush out and view this terrible video.
    
    4. Ha - Mr./Ms. target is trapped! Watch to see if the ‘views’ counter on the Youtube video increases. If you get one hit - the target has been served!
  Well, that’s an interesting strategy. Progressive fellow, minister Belanger.

All three videos are shot in what appears to be the same room. In the first there is quite a bit of background noise, it seems this is some kind of public(ish) space. It all has a rather institutional feel, and in the last video Belanger films himself reclining on some kind of narrow bed – it really doesn’t look like a typical home or apartment interior.

That made me a little suspicious, and with a bit of poking around I found this photograph of the interior of a room in the Urban Manor (http://postmediaedmonton.files.wordpres ... 913925.jpg), an Edmonton area facility that provides long-term housing for destitute men with drug, alcohol, and mental health issues who would otherwise be homeless. The shade of the wall paint, the curious off-colour corner ‘seam’ , and the institutional bed look like a good match.

This could, quite naturally, be nothing more than a coincidence.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Don't tell me Minister Catharine kicked him out of her seedy basement! Maybe her sick dog needed the space.

Give Belanger credit, he walks the walk. Given his apparent income he probably pays the CRA no more than his nominal "temple maintenance" tax. And he seems to have found a way to live large off government expense! Both he and Nanya, his food fair confrère, seem to have problems with accomodation.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

“minister” Belanger has released no less than three new Youtube videos:

• Exposing the fraud of secular government by exposing clear proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3pHn1mZxo
  
  More info on the person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGPW7SYQwwQ
  
  Warning about UCC filings Heather Tucci and persons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpkRoi3myvY

The first is quite dull – it’s Belanger chatting in his usual manner while scanning, page by page, his camera across the opening couple chapter of a book: Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion by David Barton. In brief, the text asserts that the founding fathers of the U.S. had always intended the country to base its law and principles on the Christian religious. Belanger agrees with that, promotes the text, and suggests his reviewers read it.

Needless to say, Barton’s text is viewed skeptically by mainstream historians.

My recommendation is to skip the video. It's no fun at all.

The second video, “More info on the person”, is much more interesting. The recording takes place in an intensely yellow room. If you are adverse to the colour yellow – beware!

This is Belanger’s usual screed that the word “person” has mystical significance, “person” really means “persona” or “a mask”, and that the true versions of the Bible (King James, natch!) use the word “person” in the instruction “God is no respecter of persons!”, while other fakey Bibles have had that language removed.

This is nothing new – Belanger has explored this route multiple times. What IS unique to this video is he pulls out a quite slick bit of evidence for his allegation that humans in Canada who have not disclaimed their “person” status are a commoditized thingie. Starting at about 7:20 he points to some quite obscure legislation, and says look at this stuff, it’s all about ownership and valuation of a human (a.k.a. person)! See? Here’s how the government actually calculates the value of a person, starting with an 8 million bond you have when you’re born.

The legislation is:

• Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, RSC 1985, c C-20: http://canlii.ca/t/7zn4
  
  Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Regulations, 1984, SOR/84-431: http://canlii.ca/t/7zlg

Belanger instructs his viewers to look at the legislation, then to tables at the end of the regulation. There one finds life expectancy tables, and a second set of tables, titled “Present value of life annuities (present value of life interest) of $1.00 per annum payable annually in arrears for life. Interest rate is at 12.3% per annum, compounded annually.”

I have to hand it to Belanger – this is pretty clever. The COACDA is not something I’d ever heard of – there isn’t even a mention of it in any case law I scanned in CanLII – this thing is obscure. Further, the COACDA’s purpose is not obvious from reading the legislation. It has all sorts of very suggestive passages, for example indicating the government issues certificates of ownership status (s. 5) for many things:

4. The following are qualified to apply for a certificate:

• (a) an individual other than a non-eligible person;
  
  (b) a corporation incorporated in Canada;
  
  (c) a partnership, if the relationship among the partners as such is governed by the laws of a province;
  
  (d) a trustee in respect of a trust, if the trustee and beneficiaries are, with respect to their status as such, governed by the laws of a province;
  
  (e) an insurance company incorporated in Canada in respect of any of its segregated funds within the meaning of the regulations; and
  
  (f) any person prescribed as being qualified to apply for a certificate or who falls into a class of persons prescribed as being qualified to apply for a certificate.

Person is defined in a manner that could arguably hint at nefarious Strawmanish purposes:

“person” means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons;

It is, quite fairly, a confusing document for those unfamiliar with legislation, for example, ss. 2(4)-(6):

(4) For the purposes of this Act, the total equity percentage of a person in any particular person shall be obtained by calculating the aggregate of

• (a) the person’s direct equity percentage in respect of the particular person, and
  
  (b) the aggregate of the percentages each of which is the product obtained when the person’s total equity percentage in respect of any other person is multiplied by that other person’s direct equity percentage in respect of the particular person.

(5) For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as "the first person") shall calculate the indirect equity percentage, in respect of an applicant, of any other person having a direct equity percentage in the first person by multiplying the direct equity percentage of the other person in the first person by the aggregate of the percentages, each of which is the first person’s direct equity percentage or indirect equity percentage in respect of the applicant.

(6) For the purposes of this Act, where the Minister is empowered to make a determination or redetermination in respect of the Canadian ownership rate of a person, that power shall include the power to adjust the Canadian ownership rate of the person on the basis of informal equity to the extent that, in the opinion of the Minister, is appropriate in the circumstances.

As I said, I’m not familiar with this legislation, but it appears to me the COACDA is intended to provide a mechanism to identify whether a particular legal entity is or is not “Canadian”, in other words owned principally by Canadians. That would have significant legal implications for tax purposes, investment, and incentive schemes.

This evaluation would necessarily include equitable interests, and so that is in part calculated (where necessary) from a life-interest basis, hence the life expectancy and life annuity tables.

Burnaby49 – do you have more thoughts on this legislation and it’s function?

In any case, a nice find by Belanger. I’ve never seen this legislation come up in OPCA circles, and from a strawman-oriented perspective it could look a little nefarious. But oh no – Belanger doesn’t stop there. I think a transcript is necessary to appreciate what he says next (starts approximately 7:30):

… scroll down a little more and you will see value of life for men and for women and the value of life as an annuity. The annuities is the interest that is paid on the bond.

You have been securitized and you are surety for that piece of paper that has 8 million dollars written on it as a value to start with, 7 million, 9 hundred and 88 thousand or something – I don’t remember the exact figures – it’s different for boys than it is for girls.

But the girls have more value up to 5 as they age because the Talmud and the Mishna clearly tells you that it’s ok to have sexual intercourse with a young gentile girl under 6 because her hymen will grow back. That’s right folks – she’s more valuable in Jewish law because her hymen will grow back. She’s used as a sex object, a sex toy, and as far as the Jews are concerned raping a young gentile girl is no worse than poking a finger in somebody’s eye.

Now you can find that in the Talmud, and believe me I’m not exaggerating, so this is why it is so important that you not be allowed to trap yourself into believing that you’re a person. By doing so you open yourself up to every type of assumption in the legal system designed by these false Jews.

As for you, you literally ask them to come and assume that you’re a dead godless animal that wants to be called a person.

Now again I’m going to repeat, this is not an opinion. I lived with a family that were Zionists who followed the Talmud, and I heard the disdain they had for gentiles, and the fun they used to make of them and how easy it was to deceive them and rip them off

This is a world-wide activity on the part of Talmud Jews. They don’t talk about it openly, they keep it pretty secret. As a matter of fact it’s a death penalty for a gentile to even read the Talmud. But I don’t think they have any death squads out there actively killing gentile because for reading the Talmud, if anything they’re quite scared because more and more gentiles are beginning to find out that these Talmudists, these Zionists, are treating us like a zoo, and they’re the zoo keepers. And they get to pick and choose amongst the animals in the zoo that they may wish to abuse, to kill, rape, rip-off, take advantage of, or just plain laugh at.

This is how vile these men and women are that wish to call themselves “Gods Chosen People”. There’s nothing chosen about them except they were chosen to get kicked out of his pleasure. They were stiff necked and they were off worshiping false gods and he gave them every chance he could, but they kept stiffin’.

Now the guys we have today have no Judaic blood. They’re not Hebrew. They are remnants of the Ashkanazi Czars that come out of Russia that adopted the Jewish religion back in the 5th century, there’s not one Jewish drop of blood in any of them, they’re imposters. They’re using Judaism to rip off the rest of the rest of the world and use their faith as the authority they have to do so.

God never sanctioned this. No, he did not. These false Jews took the Bible as their bait for the rest of the world, and they put it on top of the false usurping monarch called the Queen and said: “This is our authority and this is why you must trust us, because it’s the Bible.” What they didn’t tell you is they’re out back, with a business, manufacturing laws in violation of what the Bible says.

A little later (13:15) Belanger exclaims that in 20 years no one who has conducted their own independent research has found Belanger was wrong about the Bible, even “theologians” and “law professors”. (I’m a little hard-pressed to imagine Belanger hanging around with either, but hey … I could be wrong.)

In my experience it’s a little unusual for Belanger to get this forthright in his anti-Semitism. This is apparently a big point of conflict between Belanger and Menard. The backstory of their interrelationship is not clear, but what is obvious is that Menard is very offended by this component of Belanger’s beliefs.

I should also note that in Canadian society speech of this kind is highly unusual. Anti-Semitic speech is a basis for human rights and criminal sanction. Belanger’s really putting himself out in a risky spot by saying things like this.

There’s some other fun stuff at about 15:00 when Belanger explains how to respond to Judges who cite “Romans 13” – remind them their “authority” is God – and God says don’t add to my law. Belanger then goes on to explain (around 17:00 onward) that law is a good thing, because it prevents people who are too tightly packed together from killing one another, instead of engaging in love.

The subject of the third video is a familiar one for us here on Quatloos, but I believe the first time Belanger has commented on the OPPT. He’s in the yellow room, which turns out to be a much more pleasant shade of taupe when Belanger’s camera is not oversaturating everything …

Belanger doesn’t think much of “Heather Tucci Two-Shoes”. He indicates the UCC is basically a tool of control and usury. And a person in itself! And a mechanism for persons to claim against other persons. It’s all about respecting persons. “A dark hallway trap!”

And whoops, here come those Jews again – the UCC is just another facet of the Talmud and Torah. And Mr. Rothschild is the one who taught Tucci what to do.

Weirdly, Belanger boasts of his ability to produce photo-realistic drawings. That is his god-given talent.

You’ld think Belanger would talk about the sex-cult element of the OPPT, but no … it’s kind of a lame response. I don’t think Belanger really researched the subject.

The Quatloos vampires get no mention in any of Belanger's three new videos. I guess we weren't that much fun.

SMS Möwe

[JamesVincent]

A little later (13:15) Belanger exclaims that in 20 years no one who has conducted their own independent research has found Belanger was wrong about the Bible, even “theologians” and “law professors”. (I’m a little hard-pressed to imagine Belanger hanging around with either, but hey … I could be wrong.)

That's funny, I proved all his points moot in about 5 minutes. And I didn't even bring up every point in the Bible that states you must follow your leaders since their power is derived from God. And I'm not even a theologian, just a book reader.

[Burnaby49]

News to me too but I'll give a guess. I think the legislation Mowe links too it may be obscure federal rules relating to the determination of the percentage of Canadian ownership of non-Canadian companies considering takeovers of Canadian resource and financial companies, both very sensitive area for the nationalists.

The second document Mowe links too is the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Regulations which are an appendix to the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, RSC 1985. The first document is the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Forms Order which sets out the information required when applying for a determination, I assume under the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act.

This legislation might be intended to set information requirements for entities applying for a government determination that they meet Canadian ownership criteria before making a takeover bid and therefore don't have to face the scrutiny of The Investment Canada Act (below). If they have a successful application then they can continue without concern about the application of the Act. We had that big fuss a few years ago when Sinochem, a Chinese company tried to take over Potash Corp., a Canadian public company. The attempt was quashed by the feds. As an article relates;

The bid by BHP Billiton was blocked by the Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, on November 3rd, 2010, under the “net benefit to Canada” provision of the Canada Investment Act, in a move that shocked the global investment community. It was only the second time an investment was blocked in the history of the Act.9

The Investment Canada Act
The Investment Canada Act (ICA) was created in 1985, relaxing the criteria of the former Foreign Investment Review Agency. Under the ICA, in simplified terms, foreign companies17 who wish to establish a new Canadian business, or who wish to make an acquisition for control of an existing Canadian business have to submit an application for review if the investment exceeds an annually updated threshold. The Minister of Industry assesses if the proposed investment is of “net benefit to Canada,” and if it is not injurious to Canadian national security, among other things.

“While the Act contains criteria that the Minister is to consider when making the “net benefit” determination, these criteria are broad and afford the Minister substantial discretion in his decision-making.”18 Further, “national security is not defined in the ICA or regulations.”18 Indeed, the Minister of Industry and the federal cabinet essentially have full discretion over how they choose to review cases and the rationale upon which final decisions are based.20 This process, as well as deliberations and agreements made between foreign companies and the federal government are conducted behind closed doors, creating substantial uneasiness among the Canadian public, potential investors and Canadian decision-makers who may be drawn into a political storm if contentious investments necessitate an application for review.

http://www.asiapacific.ca/sites/default ... ada_v4.pdf

Note that the Investment Canada Act was created in 1985 and given a major revision in 2007. The Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Forms Order that Mowe links was initially legislated in 1985 and revised in 2006.

The information required for the application relates to financial control information which is what you'd expect the government to want to know before making an approval;

shall include or be accompanied by such of the information indicated in Annex 4 as is relevant and the relevant certificate set out in that Annex completed as indicated therein.

13. Where, in the case of any application, any of the following information, namely,

(a) a description of each class of capitalization,
(b) a summary of nominee client information,
(c) a summary of measured block information,
(d) a summary of the beneficial Canadian ownership calculation for each class of formal equity measured,
(e) a summary of the Canadian ownership rate calculation,
(f) any other information that is relevant in determining the Canadian ownership rate of the applicant, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) information identifying a class of capitalization,
(ii) information relating to the exclusion of a class of capitalization from measurement,
(iii) information regarding the beneficiaries of a trust,
(iv) information relating to the status of an investor as a primary investor, as a secondary investor or as an investor equity-related to an applicant,

is required in respect of the applicant or an investor in the applicant in order to make, in accordance with the Act and Regulations, a determination of the Canadian ownership rate of the applicant for the purposes of the application, such information shall be included in the application in respect of the applicant or investor, as the case may be.

As Mowe says, confusingly written legislation. That last paragraph is essentially gibberish but no doubt legally interpretable gibberish.

While the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act talks about whether a "person" is Canadian controlled;

· “control status” means, with respect to a person, whether or not the person is Canadian controlled as determined under this Act and the regulations;

I'm assuming that is just a catch-all phrase relating to corporations and partnerships, both of which are "persons" under Canadian law.

That leads to this gem of confusing legislation;

· "person” means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons;
· “prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations, or with respect to the form and manner in which any application under this Act shall be filed or the information and documentation to be contained in or to accompany that application, means prescribed by order of the Minister.

Definition of "non-eligible person"

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “non-eligible person” has the same meaning as it has under subsection 3(1) of the Foreign Investment Review Act, chapter 46 of the Statutes of Canada, 1973-74, and the regulations made pursuant to that Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require, except that, until September 1, 1987,

(a) the definition "non-eligible person" in subsection 3(1) of that Act shall be read as if subparagraph (a)(ii) of that definition were deleted there from; and

(b) subsection 3(5) of that Act shall be read as if the words "and permanent residents who have been ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one year after the time at which they first became eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship", wherever those words appear therein, were deleted therefrom.

Trust property

(3) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists with respect to all assets, investments or property held by a trustee under a trust instrument for the benefit of a person, group or class of persons, notwithstanding that under the same trust instrument different assets, investments or property are held for the benefit of a different person, group or class of persons.

Total equity percentage

(4) For the purposes of this Act, the total equity percentage of a person in any particular person shall be obtained by calculating the aggregate of

(a) the person’s direct equity percentage in respect of the particular person, and

(b) the aggregate of the percentages each of which is the product obtained when the person’s total equity percentage in respect of any other person is multiplied by that other person’s direct equity percentage in respect of the particular person.

In this context I'm assuming that the "person" specified here;

(b) the aggregate of the percentages each of which is the product obtained when the person’s total equity percentage in respect of any other person is multiplied by that other person’s direct equity percentage in respect of the particular person.

Can include an individual in addition to a corporation or partnership while the "person" mentioned here;

(b) the aggregate of the percentages each of which is the product obtained when the person’s total equity percentage in respect of any other person is multiplied by that other person’s direct equity percentage in respect of the particular person.

Relates to corporations and partnerships, not individuals. So, while this legislation is written in hellishly bureaucratic double-speak it reads to me as a convoluted attempt to determine Canadian ownership percentages of entities attempting to take over Canadian companies covered under the Investment Canada Act, not, as Belanger would have it, proof that the government owns Canadian individuals.

The above is just a quick analysis. We're getting way over my head in this area. Makes income Tax legislation look simple. Well, apart from sections 85 and 86 of the Income Tax Act of Canada, I never figured those out.

[Burnaby49]

An additional comment or two. Mowe said;

As I said, I’m not familiar with this legislation, but it appears to me the COACDA is intended to provide a mechanism to identify whether a particular legal entity is or is not “Canadian”, in other words owned principally by Canadians. That would have significant legal implications for tax purposes, investment, and incentive schemes.

This evaluation would necessarily include equitable interests, and so that is in part calculated (where necessary) from a life-interest basis, hence the life expectancy and life annuity tables.

I agree with all of the first paragraph except the last sentence. Mowe suggests that the purpose of determining Canadian ownership under this legislation would include tax and incentive considerations. I think it is specifically targeting only the "investment" part of the sentence. It is setting up parameters as to whether an acquiring entity qualifies as being Canadian for the purpose of taking over a Canadian "person" as defined (very convolutedly) in the legislation. While there will be tax and incentive implications resulting from a successful application this is just the result of the determination, not a reason for it.

This would explain why the legislation is so obscure. It not general purpose legislation but only applies in very specific and infrequent circumstances. I did a bit or research into the attempted Sinochem takeover of Potash Corp. and, while there was much discussion whether or not the federal government would approve it, I found no (on admittedly a superficial look) analysis of the details of the law that would allow the government to quash the bid. So maybe there is just very little discussion about this legislation in general.

As for the life expectation and annuity tables stuck in the back I have no idea why they are needed but I'd guess the reason they are included is for greater certainty. If a calculation of annuity value is required the inclusion of these tables gives everybody the same frame of reference since the calculation would have to be based on the regulation tables. This would stop applicants from hiring actuaries to come up with more favourable calculations based on other information. Happens all the time in tax.

Again, all guess-work on my part. This is a very specialized area that Belanger has stumbled into and interpreted to fit his world-view.

[Bill Lumbergh]

http://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debat ... 38?r=0&s=1

http://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debat ... 69?r=0&s=1

I found some mention of this act in Hansard and it sounds like you are correct. It seems as though it was enacted as part of a larger Energy Security Bill... so there isn't as much direct debate about it.

Either way it obviously doesn't do what the good Minister says it does.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I'm . . . a book reader.

Well there's your problem (where's the mythbusters emoji?)

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

While doing some digging online today I stumbled on an old 2001 "Cannabis Culture" report that explicitly indicates that "minister" "paraclete" Belanger was a member of the "Church of the Universe" 'pot church' prior to setting up CERI. There's a brief introduction to the "Church of the Universe" in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10084).

• Minister raises hell in court: Reverend Belanger accuses prohibitionists of perjury and treason (http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2213.html)

Reverend Edward Belanger, a minister of the Church of the Reformed Druids and the Church of the Universe, both of which use sacramental marijuana, continues to tie the courts into knots with his unprecedented knowledge of law and courtroom etiquette ... After his successful self-defense led one judge to retire, he began representing fellow church members.

On August 17, 2001, Belanger strode into a Winnipeg court room to defend Reverend Richard Friesen and his son from charges of possessing 555 grams of sacramental marijuana. Both wore the traditional head-gear of a Church of the Universe minister, required in court by the rules of their faith. The judge overlooked the holy hats.

My god ... did Rooke know when writing Meads v. Meads that "minister" "paraclete" Belanger actually wears a magic hat?!?! No wonder Belanger is so angry!

Magic Hat! Magic Hat!

Otherwise, it's the same old tired CERI argument. Apparently Belanger hasn't come up with a new thought in almost 15 years...

The thrust of Belanger's argument rests on the preamble to the Canadian Constitution, which says that "Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the Rule of the Law." The "Rule of Law," as defined in the Queen's coronation oath, is the King James Bible, and Canadian judges have taken an oath of allegiance to the Queen. In Genesis 1:29 it says that all plants are God's gift.

...

"Then the question is, does the court understand the meaning of their oath of allegiance, and if it does not, then they committed perjury when they took the oath," Belanger explained. "Once they have attained the office by a fraudulent false oath, and then proceed outside the rule of law, being the King James Bible, they are attempting to overthrow the Queen's rule by force, because they have guns."

...

Reverend Belanger warns that, when entering a court room armed with arguments that the court is operating illegally, it was important for him to tell them that he was there under "threat, duress and intimidation" and not because he recognized the legitimacy of the court. "Otherwise," he said, "they will assume that you are making a verbal contract with the court recognizing their authority over you."

Beyond that, Belanger was and remains a jerk:

On the day of Reverend Friesen's court case, Belanger asked the court clerk if she understood the oath. The clerk was about to read the charges into the record, said Belanger, and when he stalled her to ask about the oath, the judge interrupted by reading the charges himself and entering a plea of "not guilty" ? which Belanger was quick to point out is a violation of section 606 of the Criminal Code. Then Belanger, calling the judge a "criminal", refused to participate further in the trial.

As he and brother Friesen attempted to leave, a court sheriff poked Friesen in the chest, while the judge quickly set a new court date for next March and then sped from the room. "Back off, you are assaulting a Minister of God!" Belanger shouted at the astonished sheriff, who stumbled backward and out of the way.

I did a brief investigation to see if I could find out the result of this astonishing trial - was Friesen convicted? Well, of course. A Winnipeg Free Press article (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02.n1542.a11.html) reports Friesen was found guilty and fined $500.

"I make no dispute about the evidence before the court," Richard Friesen, 39, said of the drugs found in his basement laundry room. "It's all God-given plants and part of my religious beliefs structure. My basement is declared a church sanctuary.

"God put these plants and gave them to us as a gift. Man cannot force me to comply with laws that go against my religious beliefs."

...

"Whatever your views on cannabis marijuana, it is illegal," Chartier said. Friesen, who says he's a minister with the Assembly of the Church of the Universe, made a number of other arguments about why he shouldn't be found guilty.

He said the search warrant police used to enter his Ness Avenue home was fraudulent because the name on it was "grammatically incorrect." Friesen spells his name in "truth language," which uses colons and hyphens. He asked that Chartier refer to him as "Richard" rather than the standard "Mr. Friesen."

And the same source (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1518/a08.html) provides a different version of how Belanger's "religious regalia" was received by the court on that fateful day:

A provincial court judge showed great restraint yesterday when a self-professed minister of God tried to have him arrested in court. Edward Jay Robin Belanger said he was the highest power in the courtroom and ordered Judge Ray Wyant to throw out a series of drug charges against a fellow minister, Richard Friesen.

...

When Wyant refused to dismiss the case prior to hearing evidence at a trial, Belanger ordered sheriff's officers to take him into custody.

"You disrespect the Queen. You offer blasphemy before God. You are acting out of order and in contempt of the court that you sit," Belanger shouted at Wyant.

"God gave ( marijuana ) to me. As a minister, I have the right to use that gift. I don't care if it's the cocoa plant or the opium poppy, if God put it there, it's for our use."

...

Belanger is representing Friesen at his drug trial. Yesterday morning, the Crown was seeking to set dates for the trial.

The procedure, which should have taken a few minutes, took nearly an hour and led to several heated confrontations in the courtroom.

Belanger threatened to charge Wyant with treason, and claimed he was assaulted by sheriff's officers while trying to leave the court while the judge was speaking.

He also told a Free Press reporter he would charge him with fraud if he printed his name without his consent.

Belanger and Friesen refused to remove their hats in court, which they claim are "religious regalia", but Wyant didn't press the issue.

Both men declined to give their names to the court, claiming the courts have not taken an "oath of allegiance" to the King James Bible, which they say is the supreme law.

Wyant could have charged Belanger with contempt of court but chose to deal with him civilly.

But the judge eventually grew tired of Belanger and Friesen's refusal to co-operate and entered a not-guilty plea on Friesen's behalf.

A trial has been set for next March.

"Mr. Belanger, you will not control these proceedings, as much as you would like," said Wyant.

"As a minister of God, I don't see how you have the power to stop me," Belanger replied.

Later in the day, it was several sheriff's officers who used their power to stop Belanger from entering a courtroom in which a self-professed knight, Sir Daniel Lear, was having a sentencing hearing for tax evasion.

Belanger and Friesen again refused to remove their hats and were ordered out of the jam-packed courtroom.

Belanger began shoving the sheriff's officers and shouting that he was the victim of discrimination. His verbal tirade continued outside the court for several minutes.

Sheriff's officers eventually removed him from the courthouse without further incident.

Those who are interested can learn more about "Sir Daniel Lear" in this judgment:

• R. v. Lear, 2001 MBQB 213 (http://canlii.ca/t/4vpg)

Given all his complaints, you'ld think that "minister" "paraclete" Belanger would return to the Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench and invoke his Biblical authority to arrest a few judges. Oh well. Guess he's mellowed over the years.

(and thanks to the pot. all those years and years of pot...)

SMS Möwe

[wserra]

Magic Hat! Magic Hat!

Belanger's probably looks like this:

[ArthurWankspittle]

In Genesis 1:29 it says that all plants are God's gift.

Funny how they glomm on to marijuana and not digitalis or hemlock.

[notorial dissent]

Guess he's mellowed over the years.

Or else he has just gotten a whole lot lazier.

[AndyK]

King James Bible

WHICH VERSION ???

Also, since they're so convinced that the KJV is the unerring, exact word of God,

(1) Why aren't they upset that Canadian laws do not forbid the sale of tref?

(2) Why isn't circumcision (male only) not mandatory?

(3) By what providence did they shift the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?

(4) And, what about the other 537 precepts?

Or, did some magic wave of a wand completely obliterate all of the Bible which preceeded the New Testament?

Finally, how do they reconcile their blatant anti-semitism (or to be more accurate -- hatred of Jews) with God's compact with Abraham?

[Burnaby49]

Mowe's teaser about Sir Daniel Lear (aka Ralph Swimm) intrigued me. A preliminary hearing but no trial result for a tax evasion case forecast to take almost three months? So I checked and couldn't find a tax evasion decision either but I did pick up a few scraps from Google. Sir Daniel was convicted of whatever the offenses were;

http://www.camagazine.com/archives/prin ... 23329.aspx

Another detaxer, a self-styled knight who goes by the name Sir Daniel Kingsley Lear (his name was Ralph Merle Swimm before he saw the detax light), was hauled before a Winnipeg court for failing to file since 1978 and owing the CCRA $2.4 million. Sir Daniel defended himself, and his courtroom shenanigans provided much material for tabloid scribblers. This included telling the judge the federal and provincial governments had no jurisdiction over him and his money and that the judge himself had no jurisdiction over his own courtroom (now that's an argument sure to win sympathy with any judge). Sir Daniel cited as proof the King James Bible, the British North America Act and some-thing called the Doctrine of Philadelphia.

"I am not a legal person," Sir Daniel declared (this being the first article of the detaxer's creed).

"I'm not about to hear a bunch of nonsense," the judge replied. "I do not want to hear about the BNA Act. You can cite the Philadelphia doctrine if you like, but it's not going to do you much good. We are not in Philadelphia."

Clearly a wise and perceptive judge. In August 2001, he sent Sir Daniel to the Big House for five years and eight months.

The trial, scheduled for three months, actually took four and the comment that he served almost six years is incorrect. This is Canada not the gulag! Even though he refused to cooperate in identifying his overseas assets to pay his $2.4 million fine he was out in two years.

This article goes into more detail regarding Swimm's activities;

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... L_BzYhr99g

He seems to have been a Detaxer who also aided and abetted other in tax evasion through offshore accounts in St. Kitts and Nevis. After he was released from jail he moved here to British Columbia and changed his occupation from tax evader to purported business man, setting up a phony loan referral scam;

QUEBEC (CP) -- A self-styled knight who was convicted for avoiding paying taxes on $8.4 million in income has resurfaced in British Columbia, where he is reportedly selling clients on a scheme to win millions of dollars in financing for their businesses.

A man known as Sir Daniel Kingsley Lear was convicted in Winnipeg in 2001 of using a pyramid scheme and offshore banks to avoid paying the taxes.

Now, three people who have seen a photo of Lear from the trial say he is living under the name of Ethann Canfield in Kelowna, where he is associated with a company called Urconnected.ca.

The company professes to help "Capital Seekers and Capital Providers connect with each other."

Three clients of the new service say they have given thousands of dollars to the firm in an attempt to get millions in financing for their upstart real-estate and high-tech companies. The three say they have waited anywhere between four months and a year with no sign of the promised loans.

"It just seems like he's found another nice way to live high off the hog," said Reed Huish, president of Zenergy Corp., based in Phoenix, Ariz.

Huish, one of the people who identified Canfield from the 2001 photo, stopped his investment at just under $1,000 in fees last fall when he became suspicious. He'd hoped to get $200 million in loans for his company, which promotes alternative energy sources.

Two other clients who spoke on condition of anonymity say they handed over $30,000 to $40,000 with no results.

I just hope they'll have to stop taking in people's money," said Huish, who became involved when a friend recommended the service to him.

They said they had funded millions of dollars of projects and it was simple to do, they could do it within 30 days. That was six months ago."

Although I can't get too sympathetic for someone foolish enough to think that a payment of $1,000 to a stranger will result in $200,000,000 in loans to finance pipe dreams.

He also seems to have run some pyramid discount travel scheme at the same time as his tax evasion activities;

During the four-month trial, the jury heard from several college professors and former football players who bought into his pyramid travel scheme.

Investors paid $49 into the Getaway Travel Network and recruited 14 new investors to move up the ladder and receive discount travel to exotic five-star locales around the world.

Through slick infomercials, Lear sold luxury vacation packages that frequently left travellers in dodgy foreign hotels.

The scheme funded a lavish lifestyle for Lear and his wife in Winnipeg, where they lived in a sprawling estate on the Red River and treated themselves to high-end automobiles, fur coats and antique furniture.

This netted him a short jail term;

ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY
In the Matter of The Securities Act ("Act")
and in the Matter of Daniel Lear, also known as Sir Daniel Kingsley Lear, also known as Ralph Merle Swim ("Lear")

Charges:
On January 24, 2002, Judge Rubin of the Provincial Court of Manitoba accepted the guilty pleas of Lear to 10 counts of offences under the Act: five counts of trading without registration and five counts of trading without prospectus.

Summary:
The charges pertained to five trades to five investors. Some of the investors had previously participated in a multi-level marketing plan pertaining to Get-Aways Travel Network and membership in Pennywise PrivilegeCard International. In the years of 1997 and 1998, Lear traded in securities in the Province of Manitoba through investment programs such as those described as the Bank Founders program and Cash in on the Market Crash in connection with interests in Business Builders Club International, C-SIL Exclusive Strategic Capital Growth Plan, or Skyline Holdings Ltd. to the five residents of Manitoba for total consideration of $64,500.00 USD or approximately $89,800.00 in Canadian funds. The programs purported to have phenomenal returns and involved the use of an International Business Corporation ("IBC"). To invest, funds were wire transferred by the investors to offshore accounts in Nevis, except in one case where alternative instructions were given by Lear for the transferring of funds to an account in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Neither the invested funds, nor any return thereon, were returned to the investors. None of Lear, Business Builders Club International, C-SIL Exclusive Strategic Capital Growth Plan, or Skyline Holdings Ltd. were registered to trade in securities under the Act, nor had any prospectuses been filed with the Commission or exemptions applied for or granted.

Sentence:
Lear was sentenced on January 24, 2002. Judge Rubin accepted the joint recommendation and sentenced Lear to terms of imprisonment of 3 months on each of the ten counts to be served concurrently with each other and with time already being served by Lear on another matter.

The Manitoba Securities Commission
January 29, 2002.

http://www.msc.gov.mb.ca/legal_docs/inv ... /lear.html

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Belanger’s been on a bit of a video surge of late – not much beyond the Volks saga (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123) that's all too interesting, unless you want to learn how his ‘assumption-based’ Bible scheme will guarantee your post-tribulation access to toilet paper (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIgdejSKn6k):

We can only entertain that the world is so full of noise and negativity that it would take a simple message. And dissuade you with other priorities, like going out and buying some more toilet paper. That’s a pretty high priority for most people. So what I’m saying is so that you don’t have to worry about where that toilet paper is coming, you might want to consider taking yourself out of the assumptive world of these men and women that in a megalomaniac fashion controlling us with their ideals, their philosophies in connection to eugenics and mass extinction of certain segments of our population.

It's the apocalypse! Extinction faces all those who are tempted from their basement encampments in the quest for toilet paper!

Beyond that revelation it seems the “minister” has completed his British Columbia sojourn and is now camping on Big Island (Belanger calls it “Huge Island” – always so dramatic!) in Edmonton. He appears to be living out of an RV - the camera pans past it as Belanger splashes out into the North Saskatchewan River.

Belanger explains that since “Huge Island” periodically floods it is “free land” and there is no government there. All you need to do is build a house on stilts, or a tree-house.

Uh … no. It’s private property.

• http://www.edmontonrivervalley.org/big- ... nd-project
  
  http://vimeo.com/63615705

And of course, that legislation he isn’t bound by says that even while he's getting his feet wet, Belanger is still not free. Public Lands Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-40 says:

3(1) Subject to subsection (2) but notwithstanding any other law, the title to the beds and shores of

(a) all permanent and naturally occurring bodies of water, and

(b) all naturally occurring rivers, streams, watercourses and lakes,

is vested in the Crown in right of Alberta and a grant or certificate of title made or issued before, on or after May 31, 1984 does not convey title to those beds or shores.

Permanently underwater areas belong to the Crown. Everything else belongs to whoever has title according to the Land Title Registry.

So Belanger? Get yer squatting ass back in your motorized home and get a move on.

SMS Möwe