https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3Sx9R-0Fk
Although he may not actually be naked; hopefully he just has his shirt off. He is in what seems to be a mobile home just outside of Creston, British Columbia and either on the way to, or coming from, Cranbrook. A very pleasant area on the road between south-western British Columbia and Alberta via the Crow's Nest pass through the Rocky Mountains. So I'm assuming he was in transit between Edmonton and Vancouver. He's learning a few rudimentary production values. He ostentatiously took his glasses off because he said they reflect in the video camera. Maybe he's listening to me, I've complained about that in the past.
He calls the video "Exercising Faith Over Fiction" but it covers a diversity of topics. Our backsides come into play about 3:00 where he starts criticizing guys like me who won't make the effort to confront the evil of the secular authorities because we are soft and lazy and play it safe. We have bought into the system with the promise of employment and pensions. He's got me pegged, guilty as charged! I doubt Belanger's working life, if it ever existed, would get him indicted on that one. Then he starts rambling about my personal hygiene;
After that he rambled on about his understanding of the evolution of Christianity, of no interest until about 9:20 when he goes CERI on us by talking about how God wants us to get agreement with our enemies and about 10:00 he starts on one of his frequent rants about that damned jurist judge John Rooke and how Rooke has an issue with godly men just trying to get in peaceful agreement with their enemies. He has a bit of a hissy-fit about Rooke's phrase "unilateral contract" and because;Certainly the quest to have it so easy so that practically there's a machine that's wiping your backside for you. That's our situation and how lazy and inattentative we have been to those who are making us dependant on their inventions.
I can understand Belanger not remembering, we're all getting on and forgetful, so here is a jog for Paraclete Belanger's memory. it's Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (“OPCA”) litigant. Belanger is probably quite correct in accusing Rooke of making the phrase up since Meads v Meads has the first usage of it I can find.He makes up a name I can't remember because it was so ridiculous
As far as Meads v Meads itself is concerned, bad news Paraclete. Like it or not Meads v Meads is settled law and has been cited, with approval, well over sixty times by other judges. Belanger notes that he is friends with a very close friend of the Rooke family so he (Belanger) and Rooke are practically related! If only Judge Rooke had known before penning Meads.
Belanger's big beef with Rooke is how he defamed and slandered him in Meads so that other people won't now listen to the truth as Belanger relates it. That is not entirely correct, the Volks and Thomas Peterson are, to their eventual cost, listening to Belanger. So maybe he means that apart from the desperate or terminally stupid nobody listens to him because of judge Rooke's harsh comments.
So why did Rooke do it? The birth annuities gravy train! The trillion dollar a year criminal enterprise stopping we common citizens from accessing our birth bonds because a corrupt judiciary aids our evil overlords for a cut of the spoils. I assume this is the kind of truth that nobody will now listen to. To be fair Belanger does, for once, produce hard irrefutable evidence to back up what seems on the face of it to be a preposterous position. He says you can read articles about it on-line!
Then he shifted away from being John Rooke's brother-in-law and became Jesus;
Apparently Pahl then appointed Rooke to take over whatever case Belanger is babbling about. I can't see how it is Meads because Belanger had no direct interest in that one. Meads was just a minor divorce issue to which Belanger was not a party. Anyhow Rooke proceeded to slander, defame, and pre-judge our hero with no proof at all and now the websites of all the law societies around the world have Rooke's judgment with Belanger's name in it. Now Belanger can't go back to any court and get justice because of "one hundred and eighty two pages of babble" so maybe it was Meads after all, that was an exhaustively comprehensive decision. In retrospect maybe getting all those judges disqualified wasn't a good idea. The reason Belanger was singled out for ridicule and slander was because he was the only person mentioned in the decision who was on the correct path, the Christian path. Dean Clifford, Menard, and all the others were just trying commercial arguments to "get out of bed with the prostitute".Christ was put to death by the Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities who aided them. They tried to do something similar to me. I had seven of their judges disqualified. One of those judges was the Assistant Chief Judge Mr. Pahl.
Belanger had been doing ok to this point but then he went over the top with lunatic ramblings about copulation, prostitutes, virginity, necrophilia, commercial intercourse with dead things, and "sticking our dicks in other's holes" (all phrases he used) and then ended it all with a bad Ricky Ricardo imitation.
Belanger's previous video is of more practical interest because it shows how you can acquire land, or at least public land (a bit unclear on that point) free of charge! Unfortunately the video, "Standing On the land in Alberta", is not a high point in his production values, a nausea inducing pan and scan of his current home in a camper at Big Island near Edmonton. You get a look at his camper but you also get to suffer vertigo as he zooms the camera about as he splashes around the bank of the North Saskatchewan river. On the upside Belanger is wielding the camera so you don't see him in the video. You have to hear him though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54K4fblmsI
The video seemingly shows Belanger squatting on what I believe to be public land; however he claims different, he claims to own it. How to achieve this feat? Become a CERI reverend and tell the government that its laws, including land laws, don't apply to you as a Christian. Let Belanger explain it in his own words starting at 2:28;
So what does this magic section of the criminal code of Canada actually say;The way to do it is to let those men and women who work as public authorities know you're a minister "I'm a minister of Christ" and let these people know that their civil authorities do not apply to you. I show them 176 of their criminal code that says their civil law does not apply to me as a minister of Christ if I'm officially performing the functions of my calling. And it turns out the function of my calling is not to associate myself with dead things, not to bow down to false gods that have added to God's Law and not to walk in the ordnance of those heathens who have dared to take on the position of lawmaker.
Belanger adds a neat little Catch 22 here. If any public servant tries to contest your interpretation of 176 and your land seizure they are automatically guilty of an indictable offense under Section 180 of the Criminal Code of Canada;176. Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman
176. (1) Every one who
(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or
(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Simple and elegant. With the average Vancouver house clocking in at $1,000,000 or so that sure sounds sweet. Except, except, . . . . . I doubt the civil authorities would interpret 176 or 180 quite the same way as Belanger does if I just moved into an office in City Hall and said it was now mine. I guess I just don't understand the powers I would have if I declared myself to be a CERI minister.180. Common nuisance
180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Definition
(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
Then he's back on the old tried and true of not adding to or taking away from God's laws and how there is no need to worry about any official response or intimidation because the Queen will back you up. Again, the basic CERI belief that the Queen's oath requires her to defend the laws of God so she'll come over and beat those pesky civil authorities over the head if they violate the laws of God as stipulated in the King James bible. He's got a point! You show me anywhere in the King James where it addresses the legal issue of public land in the Edmonton area. Those laws have been clearly added since the bible's 1611 publication date and are therefore ultra vires.
So all it takes is a bit of courage for you to have your own piece of this beautiful land that God created. When I say "you" I of course do not include you Americans. You had your chance but were foolish enough to toss the Crown out and must now face the consequences. The Queen's not coming over to berate evil-doers on your account. We Canadian got to RV first too. Tough.
Note - just made an edit because a little research showed that the individual I previously identified as judge Paul was actually judge Pahl. Sorry about that your honour.
