When I last posted on this discussion, eight months ago, Alfred Potvin had gone down in total defeat at the hands of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. He'd taken his creditors to court claiming that, thanks to the magic of minister Belanger's CERI religious gibberish, he no longer owed them any money. Unfortunately the court he took it to was Queen's Bench and Belanger's old nemesis, Judge Rooke, squashed Potvin as flat as a bug and declared Alfred a vexatious litigant in all of Alberta's courts. Undeterred Potvin took Belanger's resoundingly idiotic legal arguments to the Federal Court of Canada and, in short order, was declared a vexatious litigant there too. My last post, on March 2, 2019, related the Federal Court disaster.
However Potvin had chosen to fight on in the face of all this adversity, trying to attain the goals promise by Belanger's god-given CERI alternate laws, the goals of being a deadbeat and stiffing his creditors. Clearly a true Christian's sincerely held religious right! So, late last month, he counter-attacked judge Rooke with this submission to Alberta's Queen's Bench
[6] On September 25, 2019, the Court received irregular communications from Potvin, who now titles himself in this manner:
Alfred Gerard Potvin
General Executor
Office of the General Executor of the
ALFRED GERARD POTVIN Living Estate Trust
Fred Potvin, General Executor/
Office of the Executor
Nation Alberta
General-Post Office
Southwest 5th Ave – 639
Calgary Potvin Province
Non-resident/non-domestic/
noncommercial
[T2P2G8] - 9999
[7] In his email, titled “Notice of Judicial Interference with an Equitable Trust”, Potvin wrote:
Dear Sirs and Madams,
This is a formal request for assistance in regards to Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench orders/ file # ABQB652, and ABQB 834, issued by Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke.
This plea for relief is being made on behalf of a trust that has been settled by the Grantor to the Executor of the trust of the ALFRED GERARD POTVIN Estate/Trust.
The Executor has been named, known as Fred Potvin.
I am challenging Justice Rooke’s orders in chancery jurisdiction pursuant to sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Judicature Act of Alberta, as I am seeking leave to appear in court for the matter of the trust as Executor, notwithstanding Justice Rooke’s orders barring me from accessing the Alberta Court of the Queen’s bench without representation by a lawyer; which is in violation of my fundamental legal rights to self representation.
I would request a timely response to this correspondence, in the absence of which you will be deemed to have declined to have conducted yourself under the protocols of your office in conformance with your oath of office, in which case I will request the Supreme court of British Columbia to hear this matter, as your actions or lack thereof will constitute a act of selective discrimination and a denial of due process of law and denial of access to the courts all of which is against well established law and well established precedents. Also, denial of access to the courts is interfering with the execution of the General Executor and trustee of an equitable trust.
I attach a copies of the will and supporting documents pertaining to the trust as evidence that Fred Potvin has been appointed General Executor of an equitable trust.
I expect your reply most expediently.[sic]
Potvin had raised the ante by threatening to take his cause to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a court that does not have the jurisdiction to hear his complaint about an Alberta court order, if Judge Rooke didn't hustle to make a prompt response. However the threat itself was sufficient to jolt Queen's Bench into action! Realizing the power of Potvin's new trust based arguments Queen's Bench cravenly capitulated to his demand for an expeditious reply by issuing a decision on it on October 8th, less than three weeks after he'd contacted the court! Unfortunately it wasn't quite the response Potvin was hoping for. And, while Albert Queen's Bench does not have the power to declare Potvin a vexatious litigant outside of Alberta the court did have the power to do this;
2. Prohibiting Forum Shopping
[31] If that were not enough, Potvin has now indicated that if his demands to this Court are not satisfied, he will “forum shop” his complaints to another jurisdiction in addition to the Federal Courts, where he is already subject to litigation gatekeeping as a vexatious litigant. Forum shopping, advancing a complaint in a different jurisdiction so as to evade litigation management, is a serious form of litigation misconduct that warrants court intervention: Unrau #2, at paras 679-685.
[32] Courts may take steps to manage abusive litigants like Potvin based on their statements of intent: Unrau #2, at paras 587-591. While control of abusive litigation in British Columbia Courts is the sole jurisdiction of those courts, this Court has, starting with Callow v West Vancouver Teacher’s Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353 (CanLII), imposed an auxiliary court access restriction developed by the Ontario Courts (Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359 (CanLII) at paras 5-9) to assist in management of abusive litigants across multiple jurisdictions. I adopt this approach, and now require that Potvin submit the Potvin (Re) #1 and Potvin (Re) #2 decisions, and this decision, Potvin (Re) #3, along with the October 5, 2018 court access restriction order resulting from Potvin (Re) #2, and the court order resulting from this decision, Potvin (Re) #3, when Potvin seeks to initiate or continue court, tribunal, and police complaint activities. Specifically, I order as follows:
Alfred Gerald Potvin is prohibited from, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate:
(i) commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, and any Court outside of Alberta;
(ii) conducting or continuing any proceeding before any Canadian administrative tribunal, including, without limitation, complaints to any professional or regulatory body, or claims to a human rights commission or tribunal;
(iii) submitting an information to a justice per Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 504; or
(iv) making a complaint to any peace officer;
except where Alfred Gerald Potvin simultaneously provides a copy of the decisions in Potvin (Re) #1, 2018 ABQB 652 (CanLII); Potvin (Re) #2, 2018 ABQB 834 (CanLII); Potvin (Re) #3, 2019 ABQB 785, and the court Orders resulting from Potvin (Re) #2, 2018 ABQB 834 and Potvin (Re) #3, 2019 ABQB 785.
[35] In light of Potvin’s stated intentions, I direct a copy of this decision be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court.
In other words if Potvin tries to start any action of any kind in any court, commission, tribunal, regulatory body or any other organization anywhere in Canada that can issue legally binding orders he will be required to provide that body with a complete set of his prior court judgments so that they are aware of his abysmal, completely vexatious, meritless legal history.
Potvin (Re),
2019 ABQB 785
http://canlii.ca/t/j2s0p
But before Judge Rooke could give Potvin another hammering he had to dispose of Potvin's demand that his vexatious litigant orders be lifted. As Homer Simpson would say, done and done;
III. Potvin’s Leave Application is Rejected
[16] To the degree that Potvin’s September 25, 2019 correspondence is intended to seek permission to initiate a proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, that application is rejected on multiple bases.
The first two reasons given were quite concise;
A. Absent Required Documentary Materials
[17] First, Potvin has failed to provide the documentary materials required by Potvin (Re) #2. There is no affidavit in support of his application. He has not provided any potential application or other pleading that may be filed with the Court. What he intends to do is vague to the point that the Rule in kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 (CanLII) (referenced in Unrau #2 at paras 629-630) applies: the Court has no obligation to respond to gibberish.
B. Only Remedy is an Appeal
[18] Second, if indeed it is Potvin’s intention to challenge Potvin (Re) #1 and Potvin (Re) #2 “in chancery jurisdiction pursuant to sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Judicature Act of Alberta”, then he is in the wrong court. What he seems to want is to appeal those decisions. The appropriate forum is therefore the Alberta Court of Appeal. As for his complaint regarding him being required to submit leave applications via a lawyer and the argument that this is a “violation of my fundamental legal rights to self representation”, that too is only a possible basis for an appeal. The law in this Court is clear that mandatory lawyer representation is a valid response to abusive litigants, particularly those, such as Potvin, who engage in “offensive” OPCA litigation intended to harm others: Unrau #2, at paras 817-826.
The third reason involved minister Belanger, Potvin's religious teacher and OPCA guru;
C. Use of Pseudolaw and the “Strawman” Theory
[19] Finally, there is a deeper and more fundamental issue. Potvin is once again attempting to enforce imaginary pseudolaw on the courts. He appears to be trying to establish a claim that he, “Fred Potvin”, is the trustee for a something else, the “ALFRED GERALD POTVIN Estate/Trust”. This is familiar territory, both for the Court and for Potvin. He is attempting to apply “Strawman Theory”, the pseudolaw concept that individuals have two parts, a flesh and blood aspect, identified by a name in mixed case text, and an immaterial legal aspect, which uses the name in all uppercase letters and is associated with birth documentation and a secret government-operated bank account containing large sums. The non-human uppercase letter doppelganger is often called the “Strawman”, hence the name.
[20] Strawman Theory is universally rejected by all courts. I have previously reviewed Strawman Theory in some detail for Potvin in Potvin (Re) #1 at paras 83-92, 110-120, so he is very well aware that this concept is false and pseudolaw.
[21] Strawman Theory is so deeply flawed and universally rejected that simply invoking this concept creates a presumption that the litigant who employed this motif appears in court for an ulterior, abusive purpose: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 (CanLII) at paras 20-21, 40, 368 Nfld & PEIR 80. I make that finding here. Potvin’s “Trust/Estate” claim is abusive. Worse, Potvin knows that. He has been told what the law is. He simply ignores it.
[22] There is another very interesting aspect to Potvin’s September 25, 2019 correspondence, and him now claiming to be the “Grantor, Settler and sole living heir to the ALFRED GERARD POTVIN Estate”. Potvin not so long ago emphatically denounced any linkage to ALFRED GERALD POTVIN and declared that being associated with ALFRED GERALD POTVIN is contrary to his deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs.
[23] During some of his earlier Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and Federal Court litigation, Potvin argued strenuously that he, as a “minister” of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI], must never be linked to or interact with a “Person”, an entity identified in all uppercase letters. CERI is a fake religious group led by Edmonton resident and long time OPCA guru Edward Robin Jay Belanger. Belanger has a long history of criminal misconduct that he unsuccessfully attempts to evade via pseudolaw and claims of religious immunity.
[24] CERI members purport to be King James Bible literalists and say that they can basically ignore any law they like because the King James Bible trumps all Canadian law: see Meads at paras 134-139, 183-188; Potvin (Re) #1, at paras 102-134. On the same basis, CERI members also claim to enforce foisted unilateral “private agreements” with people they do not like. For example, a group of CERI members, including guru “minister” Belanger himself, demanded $150 million from me in a recent Federal Court action that was terminated as having no lawful basis: Williams v Rooke (12 August 2019), Ottawa T-2015-18 (FC).
[25] CERI’s ideas include Strawman Theory, and specifically reject any linkage to the Strawman. Potvin wrote to do so would put his very soul in jeopardy:
The fraud Lies in the alteration of my name to a dead corporate format for a financial purpose without my consent. That altered version of my name used without consent by these so named private men and women is referred to as a legal fiction, This representation of an all caps name is not me the man redeemed by the blood of Christ but is personation using my name and fleshly body for surety to create a security bond instrument for trading on the stock exchange by altering my name to a legal fiction* is used to increase the jurisdiction and convenience of the court and violates my faith in an attempted enforcement under duress and threat of harm, of a "debt" which doesn't exist, and in the refusal of my lawful offer to pay under protest of duress in full ... and by the threat of force, that I consent to be a "Person" and a "respecter of persons"
...
The private men and women named in this statement of claim have failed in their duty to accommodate by forcing me to be a "person" and a respecter of "persons". In so doing, they are deliberately, and knowingly attempting to make me break Gods law, as outlined in the KJB, which the Queen has sworn to uphold and defend. They have sworn an oath to Her Majesty Therefore, they are in breach of their own oaths, and laws, applicable to them. ... They must rebut my assertion that I am not a "person", consistent with my desire to obey GOD, and prove that I am a "person".
What God says about persons in the King James is relevant to this case ...that clearly says I am not to respect persons lest I fall under the conviction of the law ... Altering my name for a financial purpose turns it into a person and it has been used as a surety to create a security without my knowledge or consent
So, clearly, I am not, nor do I consent to be a person, nor will I be a respecter of Persons, as defined by your law, for to do so would place me in opposition to God, and being involved in commerce with a dead, or corporate entity is to be in commune with the dead, which is necromancy, and places me in Danger of Hellfire.
[26] Now, Potvin demands this Court acknowledge he is the “Grantor, Settler and sole living heir” to his Strawman, despite complaining only several months ago that to do so would be necrophilia and necromancy, would damn him “to Hellfire”, and would breach his most fundamental personal beliefs.
[27] One might view this abrupt reversal in allegedly fundamental religious beliefs as evidence of hypocrisy. I would suggest the matter is simpler than that. OPCA litigants are simply mercenary and very “results oriented”. They adopt and discard pseudolaw theories, and their teacher/promoter gurus, like so many used napkins. Potvin has to date employed at least four distinct pseudolaw schemes, as documented in Potvin Re #1, at paras 13-52. The September 25, 2019 materials are his fifth major shift. His fellow (for a time) CERI peer, James Knutson, went through at least six different schemes in a two-year period: Knutson (Re), 2019 ABQB 858, court access restrictions imposed Knutson (Re), 2019 ABQB 1050.
[28] Potvin’s sudden and dramatic apparent shift in faith is therefore nothing unusual, and certainly confirms my conclusion in Potvin Re #1 at paras 121-134, that courts do not need to accommodate purported OPCA religious beliefs, CERI or otherwise. These claims are legally absurd and factually nothing more than a flag of convenience.
However, with Potvin's dream of screwing all of his creditors seemingly almost in his grasp if he can just forum shop a court willing to agree with Belanger's unintelligible nonsense, I have no doubt that he will struggle on and file a lawsuit against Rooke in British Columbia. Unlike Alberta's Queen's Bench the Supreme Court of British Columbia is very reluctant to impose vexatious litigant designations so he may get a good run at wasting court time here. However the Federal Court of Canada has also historically been reluctant to bestow vexatious litigant designations but they designated Potvin as one almost as soon as he filed his first case there. So court attitudes might be changing and the halcyon days of endless frivolous sovereign litigation may be drawing to a close here in British Columbia too.
Normally I try to be objective in my case reviews but, frankly, I'm appalled, no, outraged at this decision. It reeks of judicial unfairness. Other OPCA litigants have to wait months, sometimes years, to have Queen's Bench shit on them. All that golden boy Potvin had to do to get red-carpet treatment was to send the court an email and he was ushered right to the head of the line. So much for the charade of equal access to justice in Canada!
Of course the real victim in all of this is the man who gave Potvin his game plan, minister Belanger. If you take the comments made about him by judge Rooke in just this one decision and lay them out in a logical squence this is what you get as the opinion of Queen's Bench regarding Belanger's sincerely held religious beliefs;
Minister Belanger, is an "OPCA guru" with a "long history of criminal misconduct" who leads a "fake religious group" which promotes "legally absurd pseudolaw". "The courts do not need to accommodate purported OPCA religious beliefs, CERI or otherwise. These claims are nothing more than a flag of convenience."
Harsh words indeed for a humble Christian minister just tending to his flock. He's God's watchman from Ezekiel 3-17 tasked with the duty of guiding them through the treacherous shoals of an evil world of creditors, police, courts and hostile government actors and agencies. He carries the burden of leading them to a paradise of mandatory religious accommodation where their oppressors will give them whatever they desire because the law, God's law, requires that they do so. But, while Belanger clearly sees the path to this goal, his nemesis Judge Rooke blocks him at every turn by insisting on treating him as if he were a person. We can only wait to see what Belanger's next attack will be in his titanic war to overcome Rooke.
