Minister Belanger Sues Judge Rooke!

[Burnaby49]

NOTE - Blovating Burnaby49 has exceeded even his legendary capacity for rambling on and on when doing the writeup of this topic. So I've broken my initial posting into separately posted chapters to allow readers to struggle through it in more easily handled segments. First up, an introduction to the topic;

CHAPTER 1 - Belanger's Righteous Wrath!!

Well, this is it. Finally, after years of holding back his wrath, the reverend Belanger has risen in righteous anger, his legendary Christian forgiveness exhausted, and is suing the dreaded A.C.J. Rooke for defamation! You can tell the white-hot intensity of his rage by the length of the repetitive disorganized bloated pig of a diatribe masquerading as a Statement of Claim, 184 pages! And my Quatloos postings have been entered into evidence as proof of how Meads has resulted in the entire world deriding and scorning him!

http://www.mediafire.com/file/e42m7vlmd ... m.pdf/file

This is the core of his complaint;

15. The Defendant's defamation was publically spoken, recorded, and occurred on September 18, 2012 and recorded in the ACQB Docket: 4803 155609 a civil divorce matter between Crystal Lynne Meads and Dennis Larry Meads ("Meads v Meads") with no relationship to the Claimants.

He's suing for unkind words in a court judgment from six years ago.

16. The defamation was spoken publically on September 18, 2012 and heard by Crystal Lynne Meads and Dennis Larry Meads and to all the regularly scheduled court staff in attendance, as well as other men and women; members of the public present. The Claimants were not present, within the jurisdiction of the court, and had no matters or crimes before the court which it the court or the Defendant could adjudicate when the defamation was uttered. The Claimants have provided the best particulars available to them and the best particulars the Claimants can give of the persons present when the Defamation was uttered.

In the real world that most of us inhabit very few people probably even noticed Rooke's comments regarding Belanger or his personal church, the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International ("CERI"). Of those of us who did probably none of us had our opinion of Belanger changed. But let's assume that Belanger actually suffered negative consequences as a result of defamation in Meads. Why didn't he sue for defamation six years ago when the decision was released? Why now? I think the critical point was that Meads did not attack the legal correctness of Belanger's religion based legal arguments, the core of his church's attraction to most, if not all, of his followers. Belanger was really just mentioned in passing in Meads. Belanger could still promote his arguments on the basis that they'd never lost in court, so he let sleeping dogs lie. However a more recent case has directly addressed and discredited his Christianity based legal theories and I think that's what triggered this lawsuit.

22. Additional subsequent and ongoing defamations are contained in public documents of On October 5, 2018 the Defendant continued his defamation and attack of the Claimants and CERI by way of other public, published, and distributed documents. Those documents being ACQB Court File numbers 1801 12765 the Vexatious Litigant and Court Filing Restrictions Order for the recently accepted minister Alfred Gerald Potvin ("minister Fred") and ACQB docket 1801 12765 the Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke. In these public documents the defendant implied minister Edward of defrauding men and women of money. The Defendant implied that minister Edward had been charging Fred Potvin money in a scam and that Fred Potvin should ask his teacher for a refund.

And I've already reported the Potvin case on Quatloos!

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11817

Note that I gave that discussion the awkward title of "Alfred Potvin - Belanger's Sock Puppet screws Belanger in Court". It's an entirely accurate description. Belanger has spent years fabricating a religious based legal framework that he claims allows ministers in his church to get free homes by repudiating their mortgages, exempts them from paying income taxes or car insurance, allows them to refuse to hold drivers licenses, and avoid many others of life's obligations. Essentially CERI membership allows anyone Belanger designates a minister to evade any legal responsibilities they prefer not to honour. Just by joining up as CERI ministers, anyone can flout almost any laws they chose by stating that they are exempt from them because of their religious beliefs.

Belanger bases this nonsense on his theory that CERI ministers have an absolute legal right to require Canadian governments and private organizations to respect and accommodate anything that they claim is a tenet of their religion regardless of how ludicrous or self-serving these claims might seem. Anything that a CERI minister claims as a religious belief has to be accommodated in any manner that the minister demands. For example there is a verse in the King James Bible that states that God has ordered that men shall not take away or add to his laws. Since all of God's laws are, in CERI mythology, contained within the King James Bible only laws specifically written down in that book are valid. None of Canada's pesky statutory laws are included in the text of the King James Bible, you can search in vain for Federal Income Tax Act, so they are all unconstitutional in respect to Belanger and his followers and cannot be enforced against them. I assume that Belanger would agree that some statutory laws, while not literally written in the bible in legalese, still bind him and his followers since they are in the bible in non-statutory form. The usual well known ones like thou shalt not kill, bearing false witness, thou shalt not steal. But statutory acts like Alberta's Traffic Safety Act aren't in the bible in any format and are therefore not binding.

CERI's position is stated in the covering letter to the Statement of Claim;

Federal and Provincial legislations oblige actors under their jurisdiction (employers, service providers and landlords) to respect the duty to accommodate, to preserve a multicultural society. The particularity of the duty to accommodate on religious grounds is that cases fall both under the jurisdiction of the Charter and other federal and provincial human rights acts and that they challenge the notions of social values, secularism and gender equality. The notion of reasonable accommodation is a judicial creation. It implies that "federal/provincial/territorial anti-discrimination measures place a positive duty on employers, service providers and landlords [ ... ) to accommodate people's needs for reasons associated with recognized discriminatory grounds." According to Sandra Fredman, the duty of reasonable accommodation "represents and advance towards substantive equality" for three reasons. Firstly, "equality is explicitly asymmetric, aiming to redress disadvantage even if this entails different or more favourable treatment." Secondly, it is focused "on modifying the environment to facilitate the participation of those affected." Finally, "[it) goes beyond other conceptions of equality in that it expressly imposes a positive duty to make changes.

I've recounted in prior discussions the multiple failed attempts by his followers to avoid various dire consequences, financial and legal, by professing to follow his teachings. However when they've lost in court the decisions haven't directly addressed the specifics of Belanger's religious legal immunity claims. This left him free to defend his fantasy world by blaming his followers for having a lack of faith and not correctly applying his teachings. The Potvin decision ended that. Alfred Potvin's problem was debt. He'd borrowed money and wouldn't, or couldn't, pay it back. So he decided to defeat his creditors by using various generic OPCA schemes. When these all failed he found Jesus, joined CERI as a minister, and claimed that his newly-found Christian beliefs meant that he didn't have to repay his debts. As I said in the introduction to the Potvin discussion;

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

The Potvin judgment, written by Judge Rooke, specifically analyzed and rejected Potvin's CERI based defenses and thereby discredited Belanger's claims of mandatory government religious accommodation. So Belanger pretty much had to either give up on his decades-long crusade or go on the offensive. That cruel choice is what I think triggered this lawsuit. But Belanger had a problem. He couldn't directly attack the Potvin decision, only Alfred Potvin could appeal the decision and he's chosen not to. Belanger was bereft of any avenue to attack the decision itself. His only possible legal approach was to sue Judge Rooke for libel, hence this lawsuit.

Before going through the Statement of Claim I'll explain how I became aware of the lawsuit. Belanger has insinuated in the Statement of Claim that Quatloos is a mouthpiece for Alberta's Queen's Bench but the explanation of how I found this case is much more mundane and, sadly, reflects badly on that lazy bastard Burnaby49. While I ramble on and on and on about how this is Belanger's lawsuit there are in fact five plaintiffs. They are;

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

Minister Catherine has had a few mentions on Quatloos and I believe she posted here once or twice years ago. I have no idea who minister Richard Gerald: Patterson or minister Timothy Brian Charles [Pasula] are and they have never been mentioned in Quatloos. However minister David: Williams, the lead plaintiff, while a stranger to Quatloos, is not a stranger to Burnaby49. I've been meaning to post about him for the last six months. This is not the first time he's sued Judge Rooke. Last summer I picked up his name in a news report about somebody in Parry Sound Ontario being arrested for squatting in an abandoned public school and claiming to be protected from arrest because he was a Christian minister. Sounded familiar so I checked out various court websites and found this at the Federal Court of Canada, Belanger's favorite court (formatting screwed up).

Court number information
Court Number : T-1200-18
Style of Cause : MINISTER DAVID WILLIAMS v. JULIE PAYETTE ET AL
Proceeding Category : Actions Nature : Others - not provided for anywhere else [Actions]
Type of Action : Ordinary

1 2018-06-22 Toronto Statement of Claim filed on 22-JUN-2018 Tariff other action - $150.00

Since Julie Payette is the Governor-General of Canada I knew I'd hit a winner. So I trundled of to the Federal Court registry in Vancouver to get the Statement of Claim. Here it is;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/d1ur9setc ... m.pdf/file

Jackpot! This is how minister David portrays the events that led to the lawsuit.

2. minister David: Williams ("minister David")

2.1 . Minister David: Williams was directed to move to Parry Sound as part of his ministerial calling and made that move on April 01, 2017.

2.2. Minister David established a church sanctuary at the address of 15 Forest Street, Parry Sound; formerly the Parry Sound Victory Public School.

2.3. In the summer of 2017 private property notices were posted at all entrances to the property as well as on every side of the building.

2.4. Minister David continues to maintain a church sanctuary at 15 Forest Street while also securing the building and property.

2.5. On Oct. 05, 2017 the David had involuntary interaction with a man named St. Amant who threatened to arrest the minister David and he later admitted for no reason and without cause. St. Amant attempted to knowingly and falsely attempt to escalate minister David's intervention with known errant children in the park as "stalking". The knowingly fake, phony, and false claim that David had singled out someone when he had addressed a group of errant children was abundantly clear and evidenced to be a concocted fantasy. A colleague of St. Amant named Shawn Retzler was injected into the involuntary interaction. St. Amant and Shawn Retzler were advised that David was a Christian minister going about his calling and the minister David read criminal code section 176 to Shawn Retzler. Shawn Retzler("Shawn") unwanantedly threatened that minister David would be terrorized. Shawn with knowledge and awareness falsely perpetrated and perpetuated the fraud that minister David: Williams was a "free man on the land"; a terrorist. This was essential to fulfill his threat to terrorize minister David. Shawn repeatedly asked minister David if he was a free man on the land and when minister David asked what a "free man on the land was" Shawn Retzler could not define or explain. It is understood that minister David Williams' whereabouts and sojourneying is being tracked and monitored via his cell phone by the actors of the OPP and that the OPP escalated issues to the R.C.M.P. for additional investigations/te1rnrization.

2.6. On Oct. 12, 2017 Shawn with knowledge and awareness trespassed onto clearly marked private property invading property without permission, cause, or warrant, and in violation of the criminal code with the deliberate intent to fulfill his threat of terrorizing minister David.

2.7. On Oct. 12, 2017 at approximately 10:20am, Shawn did trespass onto clearly marked private property and did trespass against minister David by threat, force, violence, intimidation, terrorism, and unlawful arrest without warrant. Shawn unlawfully obstructed minister David who was in the performance of his duties and Shawn did prevented minister David from performing his divine service and obstructed the minister from performing the functions of his calling. All actions taken against minister David and church property by Shawn took place on well signed private property and Shawn acting without warrant or permission on known private property.

2.8. Shawn having violated many sections of the criminal code nullifies any findings thereafter wither criminal or civil and makes them inadmissible in court.

2.9. When Shawn approached minister David, minister David immediately served Shawn with a physical copy of criminal code section 176, 180, and the minister David's church card. Shawn was advised that minister David was in the process of performing his ministerial duties and calling.

2.10. Shawn arrested minister David.

The official version of events is somewhat different. Williams, apparently homeless, decided to squat in a vacant public school (the 15th Forest Street property) so he broke in, made himself at home, then proceeded to put up "Private Property Keep Out" signs around it on the basis that the school now somehow belonged to him and was a protected religious sanctuary where he had to be allowed to perform his duties as a CERI minister free of harassment. Not surprisingly authorities weren't as on-board with that as he might have wished and sent police in to get him out which resulted in his arrest by Police officers Rezler and St. Amand. He retaliated with Williams v Payette. Note the massive list of defendants. Most seem to be either Parry Sound locals, like the police officers, or federal government officials. But, for some reason, Judge Rooke is in there too.

I'd planned to write it up but somehow, like many other potential Quatloos postings, I just never got around to it. But with six months passing and year end approaching I thought I'd go check the Federal Court registry to see how it all worked out. To my surprise when I did a name check for David Williams I found that he was involved as a plaintiff in yet another lawsuit with Judge Rooke as the defendant;

Court number information
Court Number : T-2105-18
Style of Cause : MINISTER DAVID WILLIAMS v. JOHN D. ROOKE
Proceeding Category : Actions Nature : Others - not provided for anywhere else [Actions]
Type of Action : Ordinary

2 records found for court number T-2105-18
Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary
- 2018-12-10 Ottawa Covering letter from the Plaintiff (minister David Williams) dated 07-DEC-2018 concerning Doc. No. 1 placed on file on 10-DEC-2018
1 2018-12-10 Ottawa Statement of Claim and 2 copies filed on 10-DEC-2018 Tariff other action - $150.00

So I again made a pilgrimage to the Federal Court Registry and picked up a copy of the Statement of Claim for the new lawsuit. Before moving on to our topic I'll update you on Williams v Payette although you can read about it yourselves here;

http://apps.fct-cf.gc.ca/pq/IndexingQue ... ct_court=T

As part of his lawsuit Williams sent all of the defendants a foisted unilateral agreement stuffed full of gibberish. Since none of them replied to it they were all, according to Williams, legally bound to admit that they have agreed to every claim in his private agreement. I don't have a copy but Belanger posted it in his website.

http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.com/20 ... sound.html

To the private men and women: Steven Scharger, Brian Bencze, Wesley Beatty, Shawn Retzler, and Dawn Connor acting in the de facto capacities of Crown attorneys and OPP officers.

I am seeking to clearly express my position to you in order that your obligations to me can be fulfilled as I am one individual with fundamental rights and freedoms and my legal rights that are being limited and abridged contrary to the principles of justice by everyone involved in these actions of these people.

I am writing this in concern, I am not being frivolous, malicious, vexatious, insensitive, discriminatory or have any ill will towards anyone; I expect to be treated the same. I genuinely care for mankind and their souls. It is a part of my duty and calling to be a watchman and to warn. I must warn those who trespass against me, and others. I do not want to see anyone lose their job, be put into prison, jail, or the worst be condemned for eternity. I am forgiving, but I also must stand up in God’s name, and protect my rights and the rights of others.

I am Christian minister of the Church Of The Ecumenical Redemption International as called by God Almighty; I greet you in the name of Yahushua the risen Christ and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor defender of the Christian faith. I do this in accord with the Royal Styles and Titles Act, being an enactment of the Canadian Parliament, in keeping with her majesty’s sworn Coronation oath to defend the Laws of God along with the Churches, the clergy, and ministers therein, with all of her power.

God’s Law forbids us to obey other “law”, just His Laws. Acts 5:29, Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Then a lot of bible quotes leading to page after page of "it is agreed by you". Essentially they have agreed that they have indeed illegally prosecuted a minister of god acting within his rights under the law, So he gets a free school!

It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no dispute to the fact that God’s law in the authorized version of the King James Bible is supreme and is defended by Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor anointed of God who you have sworn an oath to bear true allegiance to.

It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute the fact, that you in your public capacities have no authority in any law to intimidate me to violate my faith by suggesting my lawful excuse for nonappearance, so expressively provided and substantiated with facts, is invalid and that an arrest warrant will issue if I the man do not formally submit myself to the jurisdiction of a fraudulent court with a false oath acting as a false god.

It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute to the fact that the preceding fact if ignored will amount to a treason against the government of her majesty by attempting to overthrow the rule of law and government of the King James Bible.

It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute the fact that all the laws in Ontario are applicable only to the government as per section 32 and 52 of the Constitution.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David Williams with witnesses confirming and as of his faith, is doing his duty and officially performing his function as a Christian minister under the Christ's charge and protection of the diligent oath sworn duty of the Christian Monarch.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities the minister known as David Williams is being obstructed upon the pretence of executing: a civil process, civil code violation, and or civil process and being denied access to truly allegiant justice, by those acting under the oath and office of a sworn Allegiant to a Christian Monarch.

It is agreed by you that you are aware in your private capacities that the minister known as David Williams is being discriminated against, by those private men and women acting as Crown attorneys and OPP officers executing de facto policies, because of David Williams’ diligent and faithful adherence to his Christian faith and defence of same.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you are aware of your international signatory duty as a service provider, that applies to you in your capacities as a Crown attorney and OPP officer of her majesty, and your sworn duty to accommodate a minister’s faith when that accommodation of faith is demanded of you, and that you must go to hardship to provide that accommodation.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that I, am a minister of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, you have a duty and are required to accommodate my firmly held beliefs and faith; not to accommodate my freedoms is a Human Rights violation; being discrimination against me. That despite many demands for accommodation of my faith you all have ignored and refused that accommodation.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you have knowledge and awareness that the man known as David Williams is a minister of Christ and that you the private men and women have the knowledge and the awareness that you have the duty to accommodate his faith and failure to accommodate the minister’s faith can and may result in criminal charges against those who had knowledge and awareness of his desire to be accommodated as per Section 176 of the Criminal Code.

The defendants clearly confessed their guilt in this paragraph;

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that any and all attempts by any and all private men and women using commercial de facto incompetent legal fiction law and associated regulations to continue this unlawful intimidation and deliberate violation of our faiths freedoms, as defended by her majesty the Queen the anointed of God, will be seen as irrefutable proof and evidence of your mens rea or to be clear, your guilty mind directed towards the deliberate unlawful actions of Intimidation, nuisance, blasphemy, breach of trust, perjury, obstruction of a minister, treason, sedition, conspiracy, fraud, impersonation, theft, extortion, all being violations of God Jehovah’s law, and as such constitutes your consent to acknowledging full and irrevocable responsibility for your total private liability for any and all damages, consequential discomfort and trauma to our church ministry and it’s ministers . Please see Leviticus 6:2-5 for the rule the Queen defends as well as Ezra 7:23-26

And minister David isn't going to continue defending himself in court for free. He demands to be paid for his time and the defendants have agreed to pay!

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that there is no involuntary servitude; if I am requested to come to court, I will be paid and will bill according to my fee schedule.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you have no jurisdiction over a man and if you create an order or one is created as a result of you actions or inactions you all will be held personally liable.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that: I give notice to anyone that is moving a false claim against me, I will move a claim for answering a false claim and I will require fair and just compensation from all men or women moving their false claims, I give fair and just warning for anyone interfering with my rights that I will require fair and just compensation from all men or women who interfere with any of my rights, I give fair and just warning should anyone make any pleas or decisions on my behalf without my consent and full agreement in writing they and you all will be held fully and personally liable.

And on, and on, and on, that's only a small part of it. Nobody can acccuse Belanger of brevity. He takes a kitchen sink approach. There's a photocopy of one of the actual letter at the end if you are interested.

But, ignoring the fact that they've agreed with everything minister David wants through their private agreements with him, the dishonourable treasonous defendants have requested that the lawsuit be struck without leave to amend. Williams apparently ran into a problem right from the start. He, or Belanger, realized that the Statement of Claim was flawed (really?) and tried to amend it somehow or another. Unfortunately once a Statement of Claim has been filed it can only be changed by the assent of all parties or through a court order. This resulted;

Memorandum to file from R. 369 Team (M. Pace) dated 27-JUL-2018 We are in receipt of the Plaintiff's letter to amend the style of cause in the Statement of Claim. There is no consent. I advised Mr. Williams to obtain consent from the parties. He said he will. I then asked him if it would be ok to shred his letter and await a new letter with consent included He advised yes to shred the letter. placed on file.

Anybody want to hazard a guess how much chance there is that the defendants will agree to allow Williams to modify his Statement of Claim?

The various filings include this oddity from Williams;

Copy of a Letter from Plaintiff to Defendant dated 03-AUG-2018 inquiring if the Defendant's Counsel is a man or a woman and requiring proof that Michael Miller represents the Defendants received on 03-AUG-2018

And a request by Williams for the noted CERI expert, minister Belanger, to come and give him a hand explaining everything;

Letter from Plaintiff dated 13-AUG-2018 advising that he requires the presence of expert witness Edward Jay Robin for his motion to strike and he requires the Court to subpoena Edward Jay Robin. received on 15-AUG-2018

On October 15th we have this;

Letter from the Defendant dated 10-OCT-2018 "I am counsel for Justice of the Peace Cornella Mews, Justice of the Peace Gary McMahon, Yasir Naqvi, Paul Boniferro, Commissioner Vince Hawkes, Lowell Hunking, Susan Stothart, Natalie Beausoleil, Steven Scharger, Brian Bencze, Wesley Beatty, Mike Gordon, Rick Mackay, Dawn Connor, Shawn Retzler and David Lewis (collectively the "Ontario Defendant's"). I am writing in reply to Mr. William's motion which was filed in response to my clients' motion to strike his claim. It is the Ontario Defendants' position that Mr. William's motion ought to be dismissed. Mr. Williams, had he wished to oppose the motion to strike, ought to have responded to that motion. Instead he has commenced a separate motion which, similarly to his claim, is vexatious and without merit. The Ontario Defendants repeat and rely on their submissions filed in support of their motion to strike in opposition to Mr. William's counter-motion. received on 15-OCT-2018

The final document on file is this from October 23rd;

Letter from Plaintiff dated 23-OCT-2018 Advising the court that an error has been committed "...The claimant needs to notice and notify the Federal court and them pointing out that they have erred in allowing government employed individuals paid by tax dollars to act as counsel to file defences for private individuals and their private acts; the Claimant has not filed a claim against government..." and relevant caselaw (cc. Defendants) received on 23-OCT-2018

This last quote is prime CERI gibberish. Although Williams is suing government employees who were going about their official government duties he's labeled his lawsuit a "Private Claim". Just by including these two words as a magical incantation in the Statement of Claim Williams has (at least in the CERI alternate legal universe) barred the government from become involved in the lawsuit in any way. Why? Because Williams says so. So there. This means (again in CERI fantasy law) that the defendants cannot be represented by government lawyers. But they are all represented by Crown counsel which is what Williams is complaining about in the above letter.

Nothing has happened in Wlliams v Payette since Williams wrote the October 23rd letter but, eventually, the case will be flushed down the crapper, struck without leave to amend.

So now on to the main event, Williams v Rooke in post two!

[Burnaby49]

Chapter 2 - Tedious Legal Gibberish

I'd planned at this point in the posting to do an in-depth review of Canada's defamation laws. But then, like writing up Williams v Payette, I decided not to bother. I'll just say that in Canada defamation, slander, and libel are pretty much merged into one pot. What matters is that the plaintiff clearly identifies what was said or written that caused harm so the other side can respond. As this posting shows that threshold has been clearly met in the Williams v Rooke statement of claim. The statement of claim goes into great, and repetitive detail, on the statements made by Judge Rooke that the plaintiffs claimed have harmed them.

While there are five plaintiffs and the lead plaintiff is David Williams I'm going to refer to Belanger throughout this review because the entire thing is clearly his handywork. So let's go over the Statement of Claim, not in great detail, way to much repetition and irrelevant material for that, but to get the gist of what Belanger is complaining about and what his legal approach entails. First I'll point out some obvious bloat that can be easily discarded. Pages 41 to 109, over a third of this 184 page monstrosity, are just excerpts from Meads v Meads. However Belanger and CERI are only addressed in paragraphs 134 to 139 of Meads. But Belanger seems to think that virtually all of Meads was written as an attack on himself and his church. Also, as he points out, placing his good name in a document which also includes discussions on Robert Menard and Russell Porisky is, in itself, defamation.

The first place to start is the covering letter accompanying the Statement of Claim where Belanger immediately makes demands on the Federal Court to accommodate his religious beliefs, mainly by requiring the court to deny Judge Rooke the right to government legal assistance because that would be fraud. This is the same "private claim" nonsense that Williams is trying to get enforced at Federal Court in Williams v Payette. However, having learned a lesson about how Crown counsel forced their way into the action in the Williams v Payette lawsuit Belanger is trying a pre-emptive strike here by getting Crown counsel banned from the get-go;

We are noticing the Federal court that this is a private claim and that the Federal court should not allow corporate, federal, or government employed and or funded counsel to act as representatives for men and women in their private capacities; that would be fraud.

To be entirely clear he added this note at the end;

Note that as a requirement of my Christian faith I am required to deal with you in a private capacity. I wish to state emphatically that, I communicate to you to make you aware of my faith privately and tell you I cannot, as of my Christian faith, communicate to dead legal fiction persons. My intent here, by private agreement, is to settle and negate any assumptions about my divine calling as an ordained minister of Jesus Christ. Further, I want to clarify that I am not a person.

He justifies this through the way he designates the defendant;

The private man in his private, individual capacity:
John D. Rooke
Defendant

It's magic! Just use the words 'private man' and 'private capacity' and you can force the Federal Court of Canada to prohibit the other party from legal representation, or at least free legal representation. I'm still waiting with baited breath for the Federal Court's response to this demand.

Then there's Belanger's dead persons and capitalization obsession;

We wish to file a Federal claim of defamation and malfeasance in public office ecclesiastically styled and need to know what hardship you and the court could possibly point to that eliminates your duty to accommodate our faith and religious requirement to have our names styled as we all were taught in school. It is against our religion to be associated with the dead which is represented by all capitalized names and words as seen on tombstones and in obituaries. Also, it is against our faith to use all capitalization in the spelling of words.

This is no OPCA tactic or fakery as this demand is as sincere as Constable Dhillon in Quesnel British Columbia when the R.C.M.P. tried to refuse their legislated duty in accommodating his faith of wearing a turban. Our Christian faith is deserving of equal consideration with regards to our inability to be a person or respect the use of all capital dead names reserved for tombstones and obituaries.

In other words he wants his name styled minister Edward-Jay-Robin [Belanger] rather than MINISTER EDWARD-JAY-ROBIN [BELANGER] and if Sikhs can wear turbans he can dictate how his name is styled.

So what's Belanger claiming that Rooke has done to harm him;

A. Claim

1. The Claimants claim that the Defendant John. D. Rooke did with knowledge and awareness commit defamation and malfeasance of public office with intent to the utmost harm and damage to the Claimants as defined below:

2. The Claimants know the Defendant's defamation took place because of following facts which leave no room for doubt that it was and is defamation that took and is taking place:

2.1. of the Defendant's was a globally published diatribe of his personal, unfounded, unjustified, opinionated, statements, unsuppo1ted opinionated commentary, and obiter dicta against the Claimants, CERI, and its members ("defamation").

2.2. Note: that the acronym CERI - we use this in a ministerial capacity to name all the collective ministers of the body of like believers in Jesus Christ not to be confused with a legal fiction.

2.3. By the Defendant's own defamation the Claimants and CERI did not belong to the Defendant's assumed "membership" and "collective" of the dubbed "OPCA" threat and terrorists.

2.4. the defamation was stated publically to multiple individuals, recorded, and quoted in the records, and became public record of the Alberta Court of the Queen's Bench ("ACQB").

2.5. the Defendant's defamation was published and republished globally as public knowledge available to all men and women.

3. The Defendant's global public defamation continues expansively to damage the Claimants.

4. The Defendant's motivation for the defamation was the disqualification of seven judges for their criminal misconduct of intimidation of minister Edward.

It's those damn seven judges again. A core part of Belanger's self-mythology is his totally unsupported statement that he personally, though CERI magic, had seven judges on the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disqualified from hearing some case of his. Not only did he get then disqualified;

7. The Defendant's defamation came on or about two months after seven judges had violated and abused minister Edward, were investigated by the head Judge of Alberta Terry Matchett, and were disqualified pending potential criminal charges being filed by minister Edward.

So, since the Meads decision was released in September 2012 that would be about July 2012 that Belanger had his fictitious judges disqualified and nailed with criminal charges. In videos Belanger has said that the judges, rather than face criminal charges, all resigned from the Bench. In Belanger's dream world Meads v Meads was nothing more than a desperate attempt by Judge Rooke to stomp on Belanger before he could destroy the entire Alberta Court of Queens' Bench with the god-given power of his CERI legal genius;

3.8. The seven judges were disqualified as they had all intimidated minister Edward to violate his faith.

3.9. The Defendant realizing his courts were under a real threat by men and women of faith and have the International law on their side while doing so. The apparent remedy the Defendant took upon himself was to attack this threat by questioning the credibility and effecting the published defaming of men and women exercising the Christian Faith, the Claimants, Christian ministers, and their desire to follow God and obey the Bible.

3.10. The Defendant in retaliation and in defense of the weak spot of the law system attacked minister Edward, by defaming his Christian ministry, calling, and the Church of Ecumenical Redemption International CERI.

3.11. On September 18, 2012 only two months after minister Edward had seven judges disqualified the Defendant defamed the Claimants. The defamation was stated during the case of Meads v. Meads in the ACQB. The Defendant used the superior authority of his public office, hearsay, and assumption and stated his defamation outside of his jurisdiction and judicial privilege. The defamation was an attack uttered, maliciously, vindictively, and viciously with intent upon the utmost defamation of the Claimants, CERI, and its ministers.

Impressively quick work on Rooke's part getting Meads, a 188 page decision, out just two months after Belanger started inflicting the wrath of God on Queen's Bench. The problem with the story is that the only evidence of any of this nonsense is Belanger's babbling on about it. There's no record of any mass resignations at Queen's Bench, any judges reprimanded for annoying Belanger, nothing at all except his word on the matter and he's never given details like names or official proceedings. So it comes down to a matter of credibility. Take your pick, facts or Belanger?

Moving on, or back, to paragraph 2;

2. The Claimants know the Defendant's defamation took place because of following facts which leave no room for doubt that it was and is defamation that took and is taking place:

No room for doubt? None? I guess Judge Rooke is screwed. Belanger rambled on about other ills perpetrated by Judge Rooke and then accused him of criminal acts;

14. The Defendant has committed fraud by publically defaming the Claimants using the Defendant's public office while collecting a public wage to do so. The Defendant continues to use his superior office and reputation to purposely discredit and publically defame the Claimants whom the Defendant has never met and could not recognize on sight.

Who's been defrauded? Alberta taxpayers? Belanger? Belanger is pretty free with fraud accusations. It's apparently fraud just to use Crown counsel as representation. Then Belanger got somewhat overwrought about his importance in the scheme of things. Apparently the entire world watches CERI with avid interest;

18. The Defamation was addressed to a global public audience, to global individuals, to legal systems globally, to global governments, and global policing with the intent to address an alleged global issue, for a global review, and was intended for the widest possible dispersion that being a global audience.

Then we get to the previously quoted paragraph where Belanger goes on about how he was defamed by the Potvin decision. I won't cut and paste it again apart from the part that Belanger claimed harmed him;

In these public documents the defendant implied minister Edward of defrauding men and women of money. The Defendant implied that minister Edward had been charging Fred Potvin money in a scam and that Fred Potvin should ask his teacher for a refund.

Belanger really, really hates being tossed into the same hopper as all those OPCA loser mentioned in Meads;

24. The unprecedented use of superior authority haphazardly wielded by the Defendant creates and lends the illusion of unquestionable legal authenticity, implying credence, and authority to paint all who follow God and the Bible as law to be labeled as OPCA.

Then to the harm Belanger and the other plaintiffs have suffered as a result of abuse by Judge Rooke;

44. The Defendant's defamation has denigrated the Claimants and exposed the Claimants to: abusive discrimination, mistreatment, and harm based on the defamation and words spoken such as: death threats, hatred, discrimination, abuse of authority and process by peace officers and government, criminal activity, contempt, ridicule, infringement and denial of protected freedoms and rights, physical abuse, extortion, and actual threats to life and limb.

45. The Defendant's defamation has to the utmost reflected very negatively on the Claimants', character, morality, and integrity.

46. The Defendant's defamation has to the utmost prevented the Claimant's ability to worship freely, to communicate, receive services, travel, and to have all those freedoms recognized.

47. The Defendant's defamation has impaired the Claimants' financial well-being. The Claimants are minister whose financial well-being is based on: the reputation and perceived reputation of their church, the well-being of their reputation and good name, and the growth of their church and ministry.

. . . . .

48. The defamation has globally destroyed the: public image, character, morality, and integrity of the Claimants, the church CERI, and its ministers.

. . . . .

53. The Defendant's Defamation has globally branded the Claimants as terrorists and freemen on the la nd.

54. The defamation is extremely severe. The global equating of CERI, and the C laimants as being terrorists and being a "pot church ".

55. The statement of CERI being a "pot church" and the resulting inference of criminal activity and illicit substances on the part of CERI and minister had been raised without justification for the sole purpose of destroying the Claimant's and the Church's character in an endeavour to prevent CERI and the Claimant minister Edward from carrying on its, and his livelihood, and the Claimants' livelihood in their chosen occupation, it is indeed a serious matter.

So what about judicial immunity? This is a private lawsuit against Rooke in his private capacity. In any case Belanger says that the offenses against the plaintiffs perpetrated by Rooke cry so loudly for redress that judicial immunity doesn't apply;

60.7. The Defendant was outside his judicial jurisdiction. The matter before his court in Meads v. Meads was a marital action with no relationship or connection to the Claimants, CERI, or its members. Therefore, the Defendant stepped outside the protection of any judiciary privilege that might protect him in his defamation and is privately and personally liable for the defamation, libel, slander uttered, the malfeasance of public office, and the significant harm caused to men, women, and children that resulted.

60.8. the Defendant with superior knowledge and superior awareness of the laws did conduct malfeasance of public office with the intent to cause the utmost public global defamation and utmost harm to the Claimants.

60.9. The defamation was neither necessary nor appropriate in the adjudication of Meads v Meads.

60.10. The Defendant's defamation of the Claimants', CERJ, or its members was not necessary for the adjudication of Meads v Meads.

60.11. No judicial participant has the authority to falsely publically and globally destroy or label as terrorist any man, woman, or child; that exceeds all reasonable mandates as a public officer and officer of the court.

60.12. The Defendant's conduct therefore defeated the qualified privilege that attached to the occasion and the Defendant has no type of qualifying privilege defence including the defence of qualified privilege.

61. Therefore, the Defendant is not entitled to immunity from civil action for his
defamation.

And somehow Belanger managed to throw unjust enrichment into the mix;

66. The Defendant's use of his public paid position to terrorize a small select group of men and women, a Christian church which the Defendant conveniently classifies as terrorists, is evidence to justify his malice and personal angst. This is unjust enrichment.

Rooke apparently even questioned Belanger's sanity!

74. The Defendant's defamation has attempted to drag Christian ministers who are intent on following God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible into an assumed global conspiratorial "membership", "community'', a collective of radical godless terrorists.

75. The Defendant consistently mentions mental impaitment and mental disorder, indicating that people who believe and worship God are mentally deficient, impaired, or suffer from some mental disorder.

Anyhow this goes on and on until paragraph 90 when Belanger changes the topic and runs through an introduction of the all the plaintiffs, letting us know that they are just ordinary folks and how each, individually, has been harmed. But, first, a general statement yet again on what all of them have jointly suffered;

5. Law societies around the world, psychologists, and professors are writing about and repeating the Defendant's defamation of the Claimants globally. Global acknowledgement of the Defendant's defamation attributing the Claimants and CERI as being: criminals, terrorists, sovereigns, or free man on the land is thereby defaming the Claimants and the exercise of the Christian Faith. The Defendant is implying by his defamation, its publication, and global republication that the practice of Christianity is terrorism and those that practice Christianity are societal rejects, radicals, right wing extremists, conspiracy theorists, who are mentally deficient.

6. Due to the Defendant's defamation the Claimants, CERI, and its members, have been branded as terrorist. They have been terrorized, impo1tuned with all manner of harassment, withheld duty to accommodate fa ith, withheld and infringed Charter protected rights, intimidated, hindered, interfered with, and nuisanced in the Bible based practice of their faith.

7. Due to the Defendant's slander and defamation of the Claimants, their living Church, being their members, have been branded as terrorists and terrorized by public servant using the Defendant's words as validity and authorization for the abuse. The Defendant's words positioned the Claimants to be importuned for harassment, nuisance, and obstruction of their King James Bible based practice of their faith. Such importuning and defamation by the Defendant of the Claimants has caused such misfeasance, malfeasance, intimidation, harassment, nuisance and obstruction, as being so Claimed herein, to t ranspire upon the Claimants. The Claimants rely upon the record of such defamatory comments by the defendant as being relied upon by all public servants acting as justice system participants in order to discriminate against the Claimants.

Then 16 pages of stories about the suffering of the individual claimants as a result of Rooke's defamatory behavior. Feel free to get a box of hankies and read it all. Stuff like this from minister Cathie's story;

1.2. Right after the Defendant's defamation in "Meads v Meads" a civil divorce case and a direct result of the Defendant's defamation minister Cathie has been nothing but tortured, kidnapped, threw in jail, belittled, intimidated, threatened, bullied and mocked.

1.7. Since the Defendant's defamation minister Cathie has been very depressed and victimized. Minister Cathie is so tense all the time her muscles are sore and some days minister Cathie can barely walk because there is one peace officer who thinks he can just walk in minister Cathie's home anytime he wants and take minister Cathie to jail over minister Cathie's agreements because of the Defendant's defamation. Minister Cathie can't even take her dog for a walk as the peace officers and public servants follow her. Minister Cathie does not feel safe going out at all. Minister Cathie stays home all the time and feels like she is in prison, all because minister Cathie tried to get an honourable agreement, but the most important fact is that minister Cathie is being obstructed in her ministry, life, and liberty.

1.13. Minister Cathie needs of use of an ecclesiastical chariot to perform her ministry and day to day life; grocery shopping, doctor appointments, visiting family etc., the no1mal every day necessities, but is obstructed because of Defendant's defamation. Minister Cathie lives two blocks from the closest bus stop and six blocks from the closest shopping mall. It is too far for her to walk in the winter when it is freezing out as she is disabled with the disease of CO PD/asthma and her puffers freeze in the said weather and she could die. She also cannot afford a taxi.

She's probably just a touch bitter because she had her ecclesiastical pursuit chariot impounded by the police because she refused to get a driver's license, car registration, or insurance.

https://edmontonsun.com/2012/03/20/woma ... b16aca16fa

Minister David: Williams' description of his tragic backstory and endless grievances is the longest of the laments of the injustices heaped on the five plaintiffs due to Rooke's defamation. This is probably because Belanger didn't have to do any work in respect to writing it. He'd already done it for the Williams v Payette Statement of Claim so he just cut and pasted David's bio from there.

Belanger's story is, yet again, another retelling of his triumphant narrative of how he got the seven judges disqualified. The problem with that story, as much as Belanger enjoys telling it, is that it purportedly happened before Meads v Meads was released so is it irrelevant to any defamation Belanger might have suffered from Meads. He actually does not note any defamation in Meads that affected him, instead skipping from the seven judges in 2012 right to Potvin in 2018. He ends his section of grievances with;

3.13. Between July 23, 2018 and September 20, 2018 for several months while unlawfully incarcerated, a literal death threat was issued, the life of the minister Edward was threatened, and he was living an incarcerated terrorized existence worse than that of death row while being constrained unable to escape or secure his safety. Minister Edward's life was realistically in serious jeopardy as death threats had been delivered. A perilous and pernicious rumour perpetrated by the authorities was that minister Edward was a pedophile. The authorities were notified of the reality of this falsely contrived situation and took no action to ensure minister Edward's health, safety, or well being other than transferring him to protective custody to live with other equally as dangerous and threatening prisoners. This is an example of the resu It of the Defendant's defamation which falsely claimed the Claimants and CERI were antigovernment domestic terrorists worthy of persecution or worse.

Minster Richard Gerald: Patterson is a stranger to me and I have no idea what his background is. His writeup is almost entirely a litany of the hardships Meads has inflicted on him and the only clue as to any specific issue he's been involved in is this;

4.4. For greater clarity, those acting as peace officers/police and those above them in the political hierarchy continue to interfere with minister Richard Gerald's travels and ministry by wrongfully and maliciously labeling minister Richard Gerald as Q.P.C.A. and minister Richard Gerald by using force and threat to entice minister Richard Gerald into violating his faith, slavery, and or bondage. God's word the Bible confirms that minister Richard Gerald, is a man and minister of our heavenly Father, and is absolutely not obligated to be a servant to anyone or any title, other than the most high Creator the Universe.

If he's had travelling problems perhaps he has the same car licensing and insurance issues as minister Cathie.

While I knew nothing about minister Timothy Brian Charles [Pasula] before reading this statement of claim he clearly has an interesting backstory;

5.9. During the date of June 22, 2016 A.D., at Edmonton Alberta Canada near the address of 9015-91 street, people acting as Edmonton Police Service officers and/or servants under the authority and/or administration of Rod Knecht, being the private man acting as the Chief of Police for Edmonton Police Service; during said date, willfully and unlawfully pointed guns at 'the Minister Timothy's flesh and blood living soul, namely at the Minister Timothy's head, while the Minister Timothy, being a flesh and blood man, was privately sitting peacefully and unarmed in his property, which was a 2004 Ford Windstar, green colored ride. During said date, said people; acting as officers and/or servants, delivered two explosives into the Minister Timothy's private property, which exploded near the Minister Timothy's flesh and blood living soul; causing irreparable harm and damage. Moreover, said servants and/or officers, under Rod Knecht, also smashed several windows and punctured/damaged wheels, at the Minister Timothy's property, and then, in chronological order, they electrocuted the minister Timothy, bound the Minister Timothy with chains, and took the Minister Timothy captive.

5.10. The Minister Timothy believes that a mistake, and/or a fraud, occurred, as to give the policy enforcement agents direction, and/or a warrant for the Minister Timothy's arrest, as to charge against the Minister Timothy with an onslaught of great wickedness. The Minister Timothy believes that this mistake, and/or fraud, occurred due to the recorded fact that there was an incorrect address written; as by a legal person on a legal document, which perhaps was in association with a Recognizance Engagement with conditions attached; which the Minister Timothy was intimidated, under duress, and forced to accept and complete, without compensation whatsoever.

I can't find anything about this in Google so I'm going to speculate that he was, yet again, another of Belanger's acolytes who refused to get a driver's license, car registration or insurance. I'm guessing that he was stopped by police for this and when he refused to come out of his 2004 Windstar the police broke in and forced him out. His electrocution was probably a taste of the Taser and the chains he was bound in were a pair of handcuffs. All because of Meads v Meads!

Unlike the other plaintiffs Minister Timothy wants a little extra from this lawsuit apart from any defamation damages;

5.11. To summarize, the Minister Timothy, being Christ's minister and a man with a Christian given name, Timothy Brian Charles, requires to know if he, the Minister Timothy, is able to perform the functions of his calling, which is being Christ's minister and bondservant, freely; and unmolested by her Majesty's servants and/or officers. As such; the Minister Timothy is desirous and of a necessity, in the emergent matter of defending his faith and ministry, to demand an order in the nature of Mandamus to respect sections 176, 180, and 423 of the criminal code, in respect of the Minister Timothy's ministry and calling.

Which, again making an assumption, is a request to have the Federal Court override whatever unfortunate consequences Timmy faced from his little driving episode. Or there may be more. This is section 423 of the Criminal Code that he seems to be having problems with;

Intimidation

 423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

(c) persistently follows that person;

(d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;

(e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;

(f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(g) blocks or obstructs a highway.

And this is section 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.

(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.

And, immediately after getting to know the players better, we hit that huge 68 page road block of cut and pastes of Meads. So time for another break and we'll start again where that mass of excerpts ends.

[Burnaby49]

Chapter 3 - More Tedious Legal Gibberish

We'll pick up the story again at the bottom of page 109. But from here to page 129 is just another long litany of all the mean things that judge Rooke has written about them and how badly they've suffered as a result. I'm too beaten down by the prior 109 pages to review it in any detail but by all means feel free to dive in. A few points of note;

F. The Slanders

1. The Claimants claim that the Defendant has slandered or caused the Claimants to be publically slandered globally as listed in section E. Defamatory Statements. 2. The Claimants claim the incidents of public global slander by the Defendant continue.

It's my understanding that slander is a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. If so there is no slander from Judge Rooke, just libel.

Belanger hits close to home for Burnaby49 in one comment;

6. The quotations in the section E: Defamatory Statements defame the Claimants by way of stating, inferring, or attributing to the Claimants the following, but not strictly limited to the following:

. . . . . .

6.49. by inclusionary and guilt by association and attributing to the Claimants tax evasion and counseling others to commit fraud and liken the Claimants unto Russell Porisky.

6.50. by inclusionary and guilt by association and liken the Claimants unto Russell Porisky.

6.115. by inclusionary and guilt by association with Porisky and illegal commercial practices like pyramid schemes and tax evasion.

My Russell Porisky, who's trial I attended and wrote up!

As part of this section, not satisfied that Rooke's actual words would get the job done, Belanger's imagination went into flights of fantasy of what he understands Rooke to really mean. Unstated but obvious inferences like this;

6.13. by inferring and attributing to the Claimants as being criminals worthy of prison like the heinous crime of "tax evasion", like criminals, like the convicted Wesley Snipes who went to prison.

So, as a society, we've finally moved past "just like Hitler" to "Just like Wesley Snipes". A step forward in my books! Then on to more speculation on what Judge Rooke has inflicted on the plaintiffs through this one decision;

6.66. are a "global" (vast) entity "community" (organized crime or syndicate)(illegal) that requires the rallying of the (troops) courts, judiciary, lawyers, all need to band together to strategize against the onslaught.

I'd guess, at worse, CERI is considered a nuisance by Queen's Bench notwithstanding Belanger's obvious yearning to be the leader of a vast global entity. Then we're back in Belanger's favorite daydream;

6.71.l. In fact minister Edward was very successful in having seven judges disqualified for their criminal misconduct towards him through an investigation by the head judge of Alberta Terry Matchett.

All coming down to this Sherlock Holmesian conclusion;

6.74. there is illegality afoot.

Paragraph 6 is broken up into 124 sub-paragraphs. Belanger just won't stop with the anguish. Sections 7 and 8 are worse because they make no sense at all, at least that I can detect. We're now deep in the gibberish zone with quotes like this;

8.7. warrant special court procedures - deserving of unique non-normal nonstandard
treatment.
8.8. investigate, fingerprint - under investigation - crime committed and
investigation.
8.9. schemes, secret, trick, - cove1t deceptive behaviour.
8.10. plot of a dark fantasy novel , byzantine schemes - sinister fictional archaic
conspiracies.
8.11. problematic - troublesome
8.12. rallying the courts - a problem so big that it needs to launch rallied the
troops and launch an offensive; war.
8.13. the flavour of this guru's rhetoric - the ramblings of a cult leader.
8.14. "OPCA litigants who seem quite willing to 'pull the wool over their own
eyes'." - gullible, mentally simple and deficient.
8.15. inflict unnecessary expenses - envisions a violent unwarranted attack
causing damage.
8.16. provide easy rewards - get rich quick schemes, shams, scams, fakery, and
conmen.
8.17. parasites - blood suckers, leeches.
8.18. Pseudo legal - superficial of no real substance.
8.19. duped-mental retards.
8.20. "community" "membership" - globally organized affiliation.
8.21. tricks, magic hats - reference to prestidigitation, illusion, not real, fakery.
8.22. scams, a fraudulent business scheme, swindle.
8.23. "paper terrorists" - a terrorist.
8.24. Guru - a cultic instructor of intellectual or spiritual guide.

A word to the wise minister Belanger, 8.19 is no longer considered politically correct.

Then Section J, on page 129, goes back to familiar territory with yet again another recital of all the pain that been inflicted on the plaintiffs. Belanger lays it on pretty thick. Most repetitive but he does provide some insight into his family life.

1.10. Additionally, minister Edward feels, extremely distraught and depressed, under house arrest, ejected by his family, friends, and peers he has known for decades, he has been portrayed to appear as a criminal, a fraud, a flimflam, sham, imposter that is out to scam the world, brining about a high state of anxiety, his life and family life have been devastated,

1.11. Two daughters have both seen that Meads v. Meads judgment and they have even had their friends comment to them about the Meads v. Meads judgment which is embarrassing and extremely distressing for minister Edward and his daughters. Bringing about a high state of anxiety.

Belanger really has no reason to worry about any adverse effects Meads has on at least one of his daughters' opinion of him. As I've related on Quatloos he got into a flame war with her, attacking her over his assumptions on how abusively she would treat his grandchildren at such time as she ever got around to getting married, getting pregnant, and producing a grandchild or two. She locked him out of her Facebook page after he threatened to go to government officials to expose her future mistreatment of his non-existent grandchildren.

And a sad story how, thanks to Meads, the entire world would spit on him if he lay in the gutter with a broken leg;

1.18. The Defendant has convinced the whole world that minister Edward is a confirmed criminal because the Defendant is supposed to be a man of superior and unquestionable authority.

1.19. The Defendant a man of unusual authority has taken and abused his public position to paint the Claimants as a social reject, criminal, flim-flam man, who doesn't deserve enough change for coffee even if he be laying in the street with a broken leg.

Section K covers Rooke's malfeasance in Public Office. I'm not going into it. As with the rest of this statement of claim It just goes on and on and on.

Finally, on page 141, we get to the damages section. But before requesting remedy Belanger has to, again obsessively include another recitation on the pain the plaintiffs have suffered and the indignities inflicted on them. It takes eight pages before he settles down enough to actually talk about damages but when he finally gets there he doesn't stint on what's due to him and his fellow sufferers;

1.3. The Claimant claims general damages.

1.4. The Claimant claims special damages.

1.5. The Claimant claims punitive damages.

1.6. The Claimant claims aggravated damages.

1.7. The Claimant claims total damages in the amount of twenty five million Canadian dollars ( 150,000,000.00).

1.8. The Claimant claims interest pursuant to the Court Orders Interest Act

1.9. The Claimant claims cost.

1.10. The Claimants request The Claimants seek a formal written apology from the Defendant and that apology is to be published by all the Canadian law reviews, law journals, national newspapers, and broadcasted by radio and television stations nationally.

1.1 J . The Claimants require an order of mandamus, recognizing 176 of the criminal code, for the Claimants and the Church ministers for their protection and the ongoing and future protection of the Church ministers and patronage.

1.12. A complete repeal of the obiter ditca/dictum of Meads v. Meads by the Defendant or alternatively a redaction of any and all references to CERI, the Church of Ecumenical Redemption International, and any and all of its ministers and members inclusive of minister Edward-Jay-robin [Belanger].

1.13 . The Claimants claims any such further relief the Court deems appropriate.

1.14. The Claimants demand severe sanctions on the Defendant.

l .15. The Claimants would request the Defendant be disqualified from being a judge anywhere in Canada and be removed from his current position.

I .16. As a result of the cause of action and the continued defamation over a period of years and the additional attacks of ministers of CERI and the Claimants the Claimants require and believe Order of injunction is reasonable.

1.17. The Claimants would require as partial remedy a public and global retraction of all the comments the defendant made, while receiving a wage in a paid for public office, that resulted in defamation and a discrediting of the Claimants and their Church worldwide.

1.18. The Claimants seek an injunction as follows:

1.18.1. An order, a permanent injunction to be issued against the defendant, J.D. Rooke, restraining him from continued defamation, disseminating, posting on the Internet or publishing, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any statements or comments about the Claimants, minister Edward, minister David, and any members or ministers of CERI. Further, to forbid the Defendant J.D. Rooke from being involved in the personal matters and affairs of CERI and its membership. To recuse himself and not to tamper with any case if any members of CERI should find themselves before him or the ACQB. The injunction shall include the publication, circulation and promotion of the books, legal opinions, law reviews, and any similar or other publications. For further particularity, the defendant shall not publish or cause to be published or otherwise disseminate or distribute in any manner whatsoever, whether by way of the Internet or other medium, any statements or other communications which refer to CERI, minister Edward, minister David, any member or other ministers of CERI, by name, depiction or description.

He only left out a public hanging then drawing and quartering ending with Rooke's head on a pike outside Queen's Bench Courthouse!

Then another 20 pages or so of yet more repetition and CERI alternate law. Until, on page 180, we get to Quatloos! Page 180 to 183 have screenshots of a Quatloos search result for "Belanger" and page 183 has this comment;

The above website that appears to have some connection with the Defendant and or the ACQB has some 209 references to CERI with individual documents having some 590 views each. Thereby, illustrating the proliferation of the Defendant's defamation on some websites preoccupation with the Defendant's defamation.

Now, on to a few musings from me.

[Burnaby49]

Chapter 4 - My Guess at Belanger's Chances

Even an non-lawyer like myself can see a few problems with the lawsuit.

1 - The basis of the lawsuit is the claimed defamatory statements made by judge Rooke in Meads v Meads. But that decision was released in September 2012 and it's taken a lackadaisical Belanger over six years to get around to suing over it. The limitations period for filing lawsuits in Federal Court is governed by Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, s 39 which says the limitation period is six years except if the matter occurs in a province; if so the provincial legislation applies. Since Meads was a judgment of an Albertan court this means that Alberta's two year statutory limit on filing defamation lawsuits applies. So even if Rooke actually defamed Belanger in Meads his right to sue over it fell off the table over four years ago. Even if the Federal Court could accept it (which it can't, see 4 below) he's still three months past the six year time period for filing.

2 - At least some of the other appellants, Willams certainly, appear to have joined CERI post-Meads. If so they have no basis for suing over it because any defamation in Meads, even if it could be proven to exist, does not affect them. The law doesn't allow for retroactive defamation, the concept that a statement made years ago about an organization you had no connection to at the time is now defamatory to you because you've since joined it. This concept also screws Belanger and crew in respect to all their claimed suffering regarding Potvin. Take this statement from Belanger;

3.13. Between July 23, 2018 and September 20, 2018 for several months while unlawfully incarcerated, a literal death threat was issued, the life of the minister Edward was threatened, and he was living an incarcerated terrorized existence worse than that of death row while being constrained unable to escape or secure his safety. Minister Edward's life was realistically in serious jeopardy as death threats had been delivered. A perilous and pernicious rumour perpetrated by the authorities was that minister Edward was a pedophile. The authorities were notified of the reality of this falsely contrived situation and took no action to ensure minister Edward's health, safety, or well being other than transferring him to protective custody to live with other equally as dangerous and threatening prisoners. This is an example of the resuIt of the Defendant's defamation which falsely claimed the Claimants and CERI were antigovernment domestic terrorists worthy of persecution or worse.

Note that his claimed suffering "as a result of the defendant's defamation" in this specific incident ended on September 20th, 2018 when he was released from jail. A significant date since the Potvin decision was released on September 9th, 2018 when he'd already been incarcerated for a month and a half and was about to be freed. The comments in Potvin couldn't have harmed Belanger or his followers for any discrimination they claimed to have suffered prior to September 9th, 2018. Anything before that date has to be attributed to Meads which, as I've said, is statute-barred.

3 - As I've noted Belanger's main concern seems to be the Potvin decision. But, while Potvin is not statute barred Belanger has no way of attacking its conclusions regardless of whether or not it is defamatory. Belanger is complaining about two aspects of Potvin, the legal analysis by Judge Rooke and comments made by Rooke about Belanger and CERI as part of the analysis. As I've already said the legal analysis of Potvin's CERI based arguments is devastating to Belanger's whole religion based legal theory. Judge Rooke refuted the whole thing using actual real-world law which will serve as a precedence for reviewing any future CERI legal claims. But Belanger can't touch this. The only person who could have appealed the Potvin decision is Alfred Potvin himself and he hasn't appealed it. Since the limitation period for an appeal is over the Potvin decision stands as settled law and nothing that can result from this defamation lawsuit will change that.

4 - Judge Rooke has judicial immunity regarding the contents of any legal judgment he writes. There are exceptions to that but they are very rarely invoked and this won't be one of those occasions. Belanger can't sue for what is said or written in relation to litigation, even if the statements are false and malicious. Check out Prefontaine v. Veale;

Prefontaine v. Veale,
2003 ABCA 367
http://canlii.ca/t/1g2rq

5 - To lard yet more futility into an already overstuffed turkey, the lawsuit has been filed at the Federal Court of Canada, a court that does not have the jurisdiction to hear it. What court in Canada does have the jurisdiction to hear an Alberta libel claim? The Albert Court of Queen's Bench! Good luck going there to sue a sitting judge!

Really Belanger's only recourse, had he a legitimate grievance, is to complain to the Canadian Judicial Council, that's the forum to discipline a rogue judge. But even if the plaintiffs went there and won the CJC might discipline Judge Rooke but it won't award the plaitiffs any cash award and it won't overturn either Meads or Potvin. But, maybe, they could get Rooke kicked off the bench! That would make eight judges that Belanger has forced to resign or be fired. So Belanger, since you're going to read this, go for it and add Judge Rooke to your seven previous victories!

My forecast on this? I'm guessing that Judge Rooke will request that the Statement of Claim be struck without leave to amend the same as he has already done in Williams v Payette. And, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' claim that this is a private lawsuit and Rooke cannot use Crown counsel, Judge Rooke will be represented by Crown counsel. Williams v Payette has a six months lead time over this filing and, as far as I can tell, is only sitting in limbo because of a lack of urgency by the parties. Perhaps Plaintiff Williams has effectively abandoned it to pursue this lawsuit instead. In any case it should be concluded before Williams v Rooke really goes anywhere so that decision will give all parties an idea what to expect here. My guess is that both lawsuits will be struck without leave to amend.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Burnaby is almost as industrious as Belanger, the sole difference being that while Burnaby's efforts are both readable and reasonable, Belanger's output is such utter crap that it would dirty any arse wiped with it.

[HardyW]

I wholeheartedly second the above assessment of Burnaby who again has provided a substantial deconstruction of this pleading.

While Canadian law may differ, it's my understanding that here in England a claim for damages must show evidence of actual damage. That does not merely mean alleging that someone is a minister, then alleging that he/she suffered various injuries whether physical or mental, then alleging that these were a result of the alleged defamation. You have to provide something more than hearsay to back that up. As far as I can see there is no attempt at providing evidence, whether by affidavits from the injured parties or even in the form of news items relating to the incidents relied on.

Secondly, Burnaby tells us that the claimant is relying on section 423 of the criminal code

 423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats ...

and he seems to be putting himself and his fellow ministers as that 'person'. How does he justify that when Burnaby tells us that he added the "note":

Note that as a requirement of my Christian faith I am required to deal with you in a private capacity. I wish to state emphatically that, I communicate to you to make you aware of my faith privately and tell you I cannot, as of my Christian faith, communicate to dead legal fiction persons. My intent here, by private agreement, is to settle and negate any assumptions about my divine calling as an ordained minister of Jesus Christ. Further, I want to clarify that I am not a person.

[SteveUK]

Legal idiocy v legal genius. This won't end well for Bellender.

[notorial dissent]

Ah, the Parcyte is just jealous because all the other big kids have gotten their vex lit status and he doesn't, yet, and he's feeling left out.

[Burnaby49]

Secondly, Burnaby tells us that the claimant is relying on section 423 of the criminal code

 423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats ...

and he seems to be putting himself and his fellow ministers as that 'person'. How does he justify that when Burnaby tells us that he added the "note":

Note that as a requirement of my Christian faith I am required to deal with you in a private capacity. I wish to state emphatically that, I communicate to you to make you aware of my faith privately and tell you I cannot, as of my Christian faith, communicate to dead legal fiction persons. My intent here, by private agreement, is to settle and negate any assumptions about my divine calling as an ordained minister of Jesus Christ. Further, I want to clarify that I am not a person.

Actually no, you've misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't saying that these sections of the Criminal Code are part of the Plaintiffs arguments, I was saying that minister Timothy wanted relief from these sections as part of the redress to be given him when he wins his lawsuit. This is what he was asking for;

5.11. To summarize, the Minister Timothy, being Christ's minister and a man with a Christian given name, Timothy Brian Charles, requires to know if he, the Minister Timothy, is able to perform the functions of his calling, which is being Christ's minister and bondservant, freely; and unmolested by her Majesty's servants and/or officers. As such; the Minister Timothy is desirous and of a necessity, in the emergent matter of defending his faith and ministry, to demand an order in the nature of Mandamus to respect sections 176, 180, and 423 of the criminal code, in respect of the Minister Timothy's ministry and calling.

However I think that I misunderstood this quote the first time around too. I thought it meant that minister Timothy was facing charges under sections 180 and 423 and he wanted them dropped. But I've changed my mind on that. What I think it really means is contained in this sentence;

the Minister Timothy is desirous and of a necessity, in the emergent matter of defending his faith and ministry, to demand an order in the nature of Mandamus to respect sections 176, 180, and 423 of the criminal code, in respect of the Minister Timothy's ministry and calling

Mandamus is;

. . . . a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/mandamus/

Section 176 of the Criminal Code is "Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman". This section is the Rosetta Stone for Belanger. It makes all things possible because it reads;

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.

(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.

(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.

Belanger interprets this to mean that his ministers get immunity from arrest or charges for anything they do at any time because they are always on duty and therefore any actions the authorities take against a CERI minister violates this section of the Criminal Code. Williams, for one, is relying on this section as part of his Williams v Payette lawsuit to annul his arrest because he claims the police officers violated section 176 when they arrested him because he was performing his ministerial duties at the time. The authorities therefore breached this part of 176;

(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,

So I'm guessing that minister Timothy is currently facing charges in Edmonton either as as a result of the traffic stop or for some other matter and he has a brilliant plan to have all charges annulled. He's claiming that the authorities are intimidating him (section 423.1) and are committing various indignities against him under section 180;

Common nuisance
· 180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
o (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
o (b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

· (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
o (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
o (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

But, in his fantasy world, as fabricated by minister Belanger, he is immune from being charged for whatever he's been charged with because he enjoys total blanket protection from all charges under section 176 since everything he does is in respect to his duties as a CEI minister. So, as part of the relief he's requesting from the Federal court of Canada, is a request for a mandamus order to the Alberta Courts and police requiring them to drop all charges against him because he was entitled to do whatever he was charged with because he was performing his ministerial duties and was therefore protected by section 176.

[Siegfried Shrink]

My experience has been that if it takes a really big leap of the imagination to assume some law or other applies or does not apply to you, you are wasting your time relying on it.

[notorial dissent]

My experience has been that if it takes a really big leap of the imagination to assume some law or other applies or does not apply to you, you are wasting your time relying on it.

That covers most if not all the sovcit/fotl guru types and followers we encounter. The ultimate being the guru whose claim is that there is "no evidence" of authority/jurisdiction. But, yeah.

[grixit]

Whatever happened to the "King's Bench", the super secret, all powerful court that none but the bravest and most honorable can find? That would seem to be the next step, have that court overrule Rooke.

[eric]

The Alberta Court of King's Bench is on temporary leave at the moment, probably because Derek Johnson and Kevin Kumar's respective fraud cases are slogging through the Canadian court system. I can't say too much because there is a publication ban, but they have seperated the trials - Kumar's is in Kelowna in April and Johnson's is in Winnipeg at a date tbd. A smart defence lawyer would race to have his client go to trial first so that he can blame it all on the other guy.

I have to get around to writing up something new on Kumar - some stuff has surfaced that since it's a new scam allows me to skirt the publication prohibition.

[Hyrion]

[snip] inquiring if the Defendant's Counsel is a man or a woman [/snip]

And the correct response to provide is:

Neither

Let the OPCA crowd chew on that for a while

[Judge Roy Bean]

re:

Judge Rooke has judicial immunity regarding the contents of any legal judgment he writes.

Indeed; I have made use of same for many, many years.

[notorial dissent]

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.

(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.

(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.

Common nuisance
· 180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
o (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
o (b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

· (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
o (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
o (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

The Paracyte seems to ignore the two bits I've highlighted. If those sections are going to have any force and effect then there must also be application of what is and isn't lawful behavior which they are then also bound to.

It would seem that the law says that driving without a license and insurance and essentially stealing a building are NOT lawful acts.

[JohnPCapitalist]

NOTE - Blovating Burnaby49 has exceeded even his legendary capacity for rambling on and on when doing the writeup of this topic. So I've broken my initial posting into separately posted chapters to allow readers to struggle through it in more easily handled segments. First up, an introduction to the topic;

CHAPTER 1 - Belanger's Righteous Wrath!!

Well, this is it. Finally, after years of holding back his wrath, the reverend Belanger has risen in righteous anger, his legendary Christian forgiveness exhausted, and is suing the dreaded A.C.J. Rooke for defamation! You can tell the white-hot intensity of his rage by the length of the repetitive disorganized bloated pig of a diatribe masquerading as a Statement of Claim, 184 pages! And my Quatloos postings have been entered into evidence as proof of how Meads has resulted in the entire world deriding and scorning him!

http://www.mediafire.com/file/e42m7vlmd ... m.pdf/file

Just wanted to thank you for this magnum opus. I took the time to read every word and enjoyed it. Appreciate your wading through all of Belanger's drivel so that I don't have to. Keep up the great contributions to research in the field!

[Burnaby49]

Section 176 of the Criminal Code is a somewhat controversial law because there really seems to be no reason for it existing. It's essentially a lingering remnant of the days when Christianity was effectively the law of the land and was considered to deserve special protection. However all of the provisions of Section 176 are now covered elsewhere in the Criminal Code. I did a google search and have not found a single example of where someone has been charged and convicted under it. It's possible that it has never been used to get a conviction. This might be partly because it is so vague in its wording. This from a presentation to parliament when it was under the gun to be repealed;

Another part of section 176 talks about “wilfully” disturbing religious worship. As someone who has closely studied the Criminal Code for 30 years, I say with confidence I have no idea what that means. Sometimes when the Criminal Code uses the word “wilfully”, it means that the person's act was intentional. Sometimes it means that it wasn't the act that was intentional, but the consequence of that act that was intentional. Sometimes it means that whether the act was intentional or not, or whether the consequence was intentional or not, the accused was reckless with regard to that, and then sometimes the word “wilfully” means that the accused didn't think about something when it would have been appropriate to think about something.

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer ... 3/evidence

Another problem is that, in accordance with its background as a protection for Christian clergy, it is uncertain whether it covers any religions apart from Christianity. While the section only applies to a "clergyman" or "minister" neither word is is defined in the Criminal Code. Last year it was proposed that it be repealed as part of an omnibus bill removing obsolete laws from the Criminal Code.

Section 176 is superfluous and its wording is inconsistent with multicultural values such as inclusivity and equality.

The offences contemplated in section 176 can be properly addressed with other sections of more general application in the Criminal Code, such as assault, mischief, uttering threats, and—in extreme cases—provisions related to terrorism.

These sections apply uniformly to every member of the public, without prejudice. They are the sections that we see most often to address abhorrent behaviour. They are used far more frequently than section 176, which has effectively caused this part of the Criminal Code to fall by the wayside in any event.

Moreover, each of these offences of a more general application come with potentially hefty penalties, including the imposition of a criminal record and even jail time.

It is also important to consider that, upon an accused being convicted, sentencing judges have a wide range of discretion. They can consider a number of factors in order to tailor an appropriate sentence for the crime. For instance, they can consider the circumstances of the offence and any motivations behind it.

https://www.straight.com/news/996531/sa ... minal-code

But there was protest from religious groups that seemed to think it a vital protection although none of them seem to have ever been is a postion to need protection under it. Knowledgeable experts on the topic of religious harassment in Canada such as these concerned citizens;

“I’ve got a pile of letters in my hand right now written to me by children, who obviously feel this is very important to them.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... s-services

Christians can feel more secure knowing that they have advocates from the same demographic group that probably has great concerns over the legal protection of Santa.

Apart from the toddlers another noted legal and religious scholar who demanded the retention of Section 176 was minister Belanger himself who ranted and raved on his Facebook page that it had to be saved to protect devout Christians. The reason for his concern is evident. One very unusual aspect of CERI, Belanger's church, is that there are no congregations. Belanger designates every one of his followers as a CERI minister. That's like every Jew in Canada being officially designated a rabbi, or every Catholic a priest. This is because of the wording of Section 176. It doesn't include protection for general religious practitioners or congregations, only clergymen. Since Section 176 is a vital key to Belanger's whole legal theory that his followers can flout whatever laws they want he has ensured, through the CERI ministerial designation, that all members of his little flock fall foursquare within the wording of the section.

Rather than face the wrath of organized religious groups the Canadian government chose to keep Section 176 in the Criminal Code as a symbolic gesture on the grounds that it wasn't entirely, competely, overwhelmingly obsolete;

But the MPs decided it holds particular symbolic value to have a Criminal Code section that specifically addresses attacks on religion.

“I don’t believe that it’s clearly obsolete, there have been charges laid in recent times, and I don’t think that it’s clearly redundant,” said Liberal MP Colin Fraser.

“Given that there is a seeming rise in volatility and level of intolerance that should be completely rejected, I’m persuaded that section 176 should remain in the Code, that it does serve some purpose.”

I've read that it is currently being reviewed to update it to get past its Christians only heritage and cover all religious and 'spiritual' (whatever that means), officiants.

The MPs also voted Wednesday to update the language so that it is gender neutral and refers to all religious and spiritual officiants, instead of just Christian clergy.

Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, who chairs the committee, said even though the section is rarely used, it is not without merit.

I'd say that "not without merit" is a pretty marginal justification for keeping an obsolete law on the books.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the accolades. This was a very difficult statement of claim to review and analyze, perhaps the worst I've actually gone through in detail. Not because of its legal complexity but because of the almost unendurable tedium resulting from having to actually read this huge mass of incoherent, repetitive, unorganized gibberish. Repetitive? Belanger was so overwhelmed with the injustices and suffering that Meads has inflicted on the plaintiffs that he obsessively returned to it over and over and over, even in those portions of the statement of claim that had absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiff's grievances. I'd feel sympathy for the Federal court staff for having to follow my lead except for two points; they'll probably dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction without bothering to go through it in any detail and they're getting paid to do it.

I'm going to confess that I cheated a bit. I only very superficially skimmed through that totally pointless 68 page whack of cut and pastes from Meads. If Belanger buried some vital legal points in the middle of it somewhere it was lost to me. Nor did I bother, at this late date, to do much of a review of the issues and legal arguments in Williams v Payette. I justified this on the basis that it has been largely superceded by Williams v Rooke but the truth is I just wasn't willing to do both of them. If anyone wants to rectify my negligence go to it!

[NYGman]

We wish to file a Federal claim of defamation and malfeasance in public office ecclesiastically styled and need to know what hardship you and the court could possibly point to that eliminates your duty to accommodate our faith and religious requirement to have our names styled as we all were taught in school. It is against our religion to be associated with the dead which is represented by all capitalized names and words as seen on tombstones and in obituaries. Also, it is against our faith to use all capitalization in the spelling of words.

Does that mean they should not associate with CERI? It would seem to me CERI is dead, and being a member, and associating with it may be against their religion.