viewtopic.php?f=48&t=12384
I’ve split it off because I want the court decision I’m reviewing, and Belanger’s part in it, separated from a discussion on Belanger’s raging anger at Donald Netolitzky. But Donald fans won't be deprived, he plays a critical role in this discusion too.
After the review I did regarding Belanger’s video excoriating Donald (in the discusion linked above), a review of an actual court decision is going to be a welcome relief. I don’t have to listen to Belanger’s whining and his demented fake religion-based demands for half a hour.
Belanger started his own ‘church’ decades ago and has been inexorably pumping out gibberish videos about it since. It’s a magic church whose doctrine allows you to stop paying taxes, get off of criminal charges, refuse to pay car insurance and drive without a license, stop paying on your mortgage and stiff your credit card company without repercussions. It’s all in the King James Bible! All these things, and more, are yours if you just join his church. Well, at least in theory. Belanger has been beating this drum for over 20 years and myriads of useful idiots, who have relied on his assistance in court have all, without exception, lost badly. Homes repossessed, Credit ratings destroyed, arrests for trivial traffic offenses, criminal convictions, cars impounded (sorry, I of course mean Ecclesiastical Pursuit Chariots). But Belanger, steadfast in his belief that he can exploit suckers as cannon fodder to argue his church’s beliefs in court, tirelessly soldiers on. The cost to the suckers for believing his nonsense is, of course, immaterial to him.
His church has no written doctrine or requirements of worship. There is no organized ecclesiastic structure, It has no physical assets, no church building, no congregations, no liturgy, no services of any kind. It doesn’t preside over weddings, funerals or christenings. The entire church, including every activity normally expected of a legitimate chnurch, is just Belanger rambling away on homemade You Tube videos.
The typical Belanger convert is someone with a problem, generally financial, often serious. He seems to get them in fits and starts. As soon as they join up Belanger makes them ministers. His church is unique in that every member, even ones who have just joined, is a minister but none have congregations and none appear to have a clue regarding the doctrine they are responsible for ministering. This is part of the reason why Belanger tries to appear in court with them. The court decision under review is entirely typical regarding Belanger’s arguments;
ATB Financial v Dimsdale Auto Parts Ltd
2024 ABKB 143
https://canlii.ca/t/k3h0b
This started out as a mortgage foreclosure hearing. Elliot McDavid, Dimsdale’s owner, was a recent convert to CERI, newly minted as a minister of the church, who claimed religious accommodation at the hearing. Being ignorant of the CERI theology supporting this claim he brought Belanger to court to represent him and explain it all. Apparently the first hearing was derailed by Belanger’s antics so it was adjourned and a new hearing was conducted to beat the crap out of Belanger. This discussion pertains to the new hearing. It was an extremely critical review of Belanger and his attempts to get involved in the case. As the court noted in the first paragraph;
Harsh, but it quickly got a lot worse.This decision does not directly relate to the parties to this litigation, or the foreclosure proceeding, but rather that an interfering third party who calls himself “minister” Edward Jay Robin Belanger [Belanger] has inserted himself into this proceeding. As will subsequently become apparent, Alberta jurisprudence and academic investigation has rejected that Belanger operates as a legitimate religious personality, so I will not use the title “minister” with Belanger. Since Belanger rejects being addressed as “Mr. Belanger”, because that is a dead thing title, I only refer to Belanger by his last name.
As for the doctrine Belanger argues on behalf of CERI’s brand-new minister;[2] Belanger calls himself an “amicus”. However, Belanger is not a lawyer, but, instead, is a self-declared religious figure and authority who has a long and dismal record in Canadian courts. Belanger is the inventor and central actor behind a fake church, the “Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International” [CERI]. Belanger invented CERI circa 2000 after courts did not accept his claims of religious and legal authority as a “Reformed Druid”.
Then the court got personal;[4] Belanger, like other OPCA gurus, claims to have secret techniques and concealed legal knowledge that Belanger purports will provide extraordinary benefits and immunities. Belanger says that he and his fellow “ministers” (always uncapitalized) are strict King James Bible literalists. Any Canadian law that does not conform to the 1611 version of the King James Bible cannot bind or affect them because that Bible is a supraconstitutional authority via the UK monarch’s Coronation Oath. Belanger and CERI interpret the purported King James Bible supraconstitutional authority in sometimes very unusual ways. For example, Belanger and his fellow “ministers” claim they are exempt from motor vehicle regulations (e.g., motor vehicle licence plates, registration, insurance) and vehicle use legislation (e.g., Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6; Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46) because any such limit would interfere with their “ministerial duties”. CERI “ministers” instead operate “Ecclesiastical Pursuit Chariots” that are protected and exempt religious vehicles: Meads at para 186. Unsurprisingly, Canadian courts uniformly reject all such CERI claims, e.g., Meads, Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 [Potvin #1]; CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 310 [CP #1].
The court then considered the wonders that Belanger had claimed the King James Bible could do for true believers like Mr. McDavid. This had been accompanied by a bullshit story of how Belanger had convinced finance companies in the past that the bible overrode their petty concerns about making money;[6] Belanger has no legal basis to participate in the Foreclosure Action. He is not a party. He is prohibited from acting as a litigation representative pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8, since Belanger is not a lawyer. Similarly, an “amicus curiae” is a court-appointed lawyer who acts as “a friend to the court”. Belanger is neither a lawyer, not the Court’s friend.
[7] However, the issue with Belanger’s court and litigation participation goes far deeper. Belanger is an individual who victimizes his customers and clientele, and who wastes court resources. Belanger knows perfectly well that none of his not-law claims work.
[8] Belanger has been found guilty and incarcerated for criminal activity, despite his claim he is exempt from Canadian criminal law. Belanger’s customers and clientele have lost their homes, been incarcerated, penalized, been prohibited from access to their children, among other negative consequences. These are all reasons why Belanger has no place in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench system, or being involved in any litigation before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
I would agree with one thing in that statement. I don’t doubt that Mr. McDavid is quite sincere in his wish not to pay interest. The court was dubious about the rest of the story too;[13] Next, Belanger advances claims that Mr. McDavid cannot be charged interest because of his “conversion to Christ”, the stereotypic CERI King James Bible as supraconstitutional authority claim. Belanger explains that he has previously acted for other CERI members and forced banks to not pursue debt interest owed by his “ministers” - now Mr. McDavid should receive the same benefit:
Because of the nature of his recent conversion to Christ, it has come to his attention that usury is a violation of his faith.
Now, previous, in 2012, with ATB I myself went into the manager of ATB, downtown Edmonton, not too -- about two blocks from here, and we spoke to the manager, and we told the manager that the woman Barb Shadow (phonetic) and Dieter Shadow (phonetic), that I was speaking for on that -- on that day had recently taken up their faith in Christ and can no longer commit to usury, and she would like the usury she had paid to apply to the principal so she could continue paying the account and cancel the auction that had been put in place. All of their farm property had been put up for surety, and the auction was set for Monday.
We were there on the Friday, and the bank, upon hearing this, the bank manager, turned to my parishioner Barbara and asked her, Is this true that you've just taken up your faith, and you can't pay usury anymore? And she said, Yes. She picked up the phone, phoned the lawyer for the bank, and said: We've got a settlement arranged here. I'd like you to cancel the auction and arrange to meet Barbara Shadow in the courthouse on Monday to sign the papers. And she said: I've cancelled this arrangement for you in lieu of the fact she's just taken up her faith. I 1 respect that, and I hope I've helped you today. Is there anything else I can do for you? And we said, No, thank you very much, and we left.
The auction was cancelled. She continued paying the principal. And this is what my parishioner would like to do. He would like to do exactly the same thing as this precedential event that took place in 2012 with ATB. It was a settlement outside of court ... And in consideration of his faith ... This is why I've come to the court seeking a court of higher jurisdiction, inherent in the belief ... As of his faith, he really can't commit to the usury anymore. He's quite sincere ...
This led to the heart of McDavid’s defense as filtered through Belanger;[14] I also take judicial notice that this narrative - that all one needs to do to not pay interest on loans is to engage a bank or lender and declare one’s “... faith in Christ and can no longer commit usury ...” - is extremely unlikely to reflect whatever happened in 2012 with the farm owners. This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof (VWW v Wasylyshen, 2013 ABQB 327 at para 52, leave refused 2014 ABCA 121), since what Belanger is claiming would result in large-scale disruptions to Canada’s financial apparatus and institutions. And even if the described event did occur, that ATB gifted farm owners probably many thousands of dollars in payments legally due under contract, that is irrelevant to whether Mr. McDavid, in a completely separate contract, has the right to demand a court enforce what would effectively be a gift by ATB, based on no legitimate legal precedent or authority.
Belanger had then presented the court with a Court Order for the judge to sign giving McDavid everything tha Belanger had demanded on his behalf. I’m not quoting it. It’s extremely long and it's complete gibberish from start to finish. I liked the concluding line.[15] Next, Belanger explicitly lays out standard CERI claims that the King James Bible is a supraconstitutional authority:
His biblical term I think precedents ... any legal formation of what usury is. The Bible is very specific. I have all of the scriptures here that he is not to commit to usury. Now, the Bible can't be superseded, and his faith and belief is respected. We have a defender of the faith Christian monarchy. ... So how I would suggest the Court would do this: First of all, to recognize his faith and beliefs as prime. If he has an act of self determination, which you were to ... what I'm believing here is international covenants take precedent in this matter over all, and I would hope that the Court would recognize that international law, in recognizing his faith and beliefs, are written in the preamble to the Emergencies Act of Canada, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ... the inherent jurisdiction of the international covenants supersedes all Provincial Courts.
I told you that Donald would make an appearance and here he is, at least indirectly;We require the issuance of this order and do so consent to the nature and cause it is offered in lieu of the damages and incontrovertible harm that may be seen upon the reputation of the court if it may be denied.
Based on this the court concluded that CERI was a fake church established, not for religious belief and worship, but as a vehicle to promote aggressive lawsuits and lawbreaking;III. Belanger’s Litigation and Dispute Record
[22] Belanger has a record of abusive litigation activity and abuse of court processes that dates back to the early 2000s, and perhaps earlier. Pseudolaw subject expert Donald J Netolitzky has conducted a detailed peer-reviewed examination of Belanger and CERI, investigating the antecedents, purported beliefs, pseudolaw theories, and litigation by Belanger and his affiliates: Donald J Netolitzky, “Jesus Built My Strawman: The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International and “minister” Edward Jay Robin Belanger” (2023) 6 International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation, DOI: 10.54208/1000/0006/004, online (pdf): ResearchGate <www.researchgate.net/publication/370057 ... n_Belanger>. Netolitzky identified multiple examples of problematic activity by Belanger that are relevant to his suitability to be a court participant, and that includes:
• Belanger threatening to kill law enforcement and others after Belanger claimed he owned religious title on a residence: Netolitzky at III(B).
• Attempts by Belanger to seize control as an “amicus curiae” of a divorce matter involving an 80-year-old man who was institutionalized for diminished capacity after having suffered multiple strokes: Netolitzky at IV(A). Belanger frequently claims to act as some kind of legal representative in other people’s litigation: Netolitzky at IV(C).
• Attempting to conduct civil litigation processes against hundreds of Alberta Justices, including all justices of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench: Netolitzky at IV(B).
• Conducting and/or directing collateral attacks and retaliatory litigation against court personnel and justices (Netolitzky at IV(C), IV(G)(1), IV(G)(3), IV(H)), and appearing as a purported expert in law (Netolitzky at IV(F)).
• Supporting legal immunity and release of a serial child sex offender subject to Long-Term Offender status: Netolitzky at IV(I). The release sought was the offender would be supervised by Belanger, personally.
[23] Netolitzky concludes that Belanger and his clientele represent the most litigious OPCA population in Canada, on a per-capita basis. The dominant characteristic of this population is using litigation and pseudolaw to attempt to inflict harm on perceived enemies: Netolitzky at V(A).
Then on to the meat of the decision, a total ban on Belanger entering any court in Alberta or participating in any way with any matter being heard by the Court of King’s Bench![24] As previously indicated, prior to founding CERI, Belanger purported to be a “Reformed Druid”, and claimed typical pseudolaw benefits such as immunity from Canadian law where that law conflicted with his Druidic belief: Netolitzky at III(B). Belanger’s history of illegal activities includes drug production and trafficking, and weapons offences (Unrau #2 at 196, Netolitzky at III(B), V(D)). Belanger not only purports to be immune from legal obligations, but also takes advantage of social benefits, for example demanding Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped support: Netolitzky at III(C).
[25] Belanger uses claimed religious status as a “hot button” tactic (Netolitzky at III(B)), though this Court has repeatedly rejected that so-called CERI religious beliefs are genuine (e.g., CP #1 at paras 33-34; CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388 at para 14 [CP #2]; Potvin #1). Netolitzky at III(C) reviews the behaviour of Belanger and his followers, the purported theological basis of CERI’s scheme, and concludes:
Together, these observations imply that CERI’s members, including Belanger, are not honest when they frame pseudolaw as purportedly sincere and honest religious beliefs. Succinctly, CERI is a fake church. This situation is not unprecedented in the pseudolaw world, particularly as a mechanism to evade income tax (e.g., In re Universal Life Church, Inc., 128 F. 3d 1294, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997). The reason why CERI robes itself as a Christian institution is patently obvious. No-one took Belanger and his fellow “Reformed Druids” seriously, so Belanger and his followers have adopted a more plausible religious mask: as fanatical King James Bible literalists. ...
... Despite its name, CERI is not a religious community or organization, but, instead, CERI is a litigation entity. CERI is not a religious cult. CERI is a legal cult, organized around one person--Belanger--and that pretends to be a religion because of the special privileged, if not taboo, status religious belief has in Canadian law and popular society.
[Netolitzky at III(C), IV, emphasis in original.]
[26] I accept this Court’s and the academic evaluation that Belanger, CERI, and CERI members are not engaged in genuine religious belief. As Netolitzky (IV(E), IV(H)), Rooke ACJ (Potvin #1 at paras 121-134; Potvin (Re), 2019 ABQB 785 at paras 22-28) and Thomas J (CP #2 at paras 14-15) have observed, supposedly profound beliefs such as that legitimate legal activities represent “necrophilia and necromancy” are nothing more than flags of convenience, and are discarded “like so many used napkins”. Justice Thomas in CP #2 at para 14 concluded demands by a CERI litigant that “... must be accommodated as religious belief are no more substantive than claims that a pasta colander is religious headgear ...”
Additionally the court invited the plaintiff to initiate a vexatious litigant ban on Belanger, hinting that it would meet with a warm reception. It also advised Mr. McDavid to consult a real lawyer and bluntly told him that that he’d suffer serious consequences if he continued to utilize Belanger’s pseudolaw tactics. Finally it told Belanger that if he was unhappy with any of this, tough, appeal it.[27] Based on Belanger’s history and his more recent activities, I conclude that steps should be taken to control and restrict Belanger’s activities before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Belanger is not a lawyer, so he is prohibited from representing persons before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench: Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8, s 106. As identified above, Belanger was obviously engaged in the unauthorized practice of law at the January 8, 2024 appearance. That is a first reason why Belanger should be subject to control.
[32] Belanger’s highly problematic activity warrants an additional step that Belanger is physically excluded from Alberta Court buildings, except when Belanger is authorized to do so by court order, or he is personally appearing in Court. This admittedly unusual step (reviewed in Unrau #2 at paras 838-846) is warranted because Belanger has a record of disruptive, interfering, threatening, and illegal behaviour that occurs inside court facilities and/or involves court and litigation actors, . . . . .
[33] Aggravating these factors is that Belanger simply rejects Canadian law and criminal prohibitions apply to him. Belanger says he can therefore do whatever he wants. Belanger’s lengthy record of illegal and criminal conduct supports that Belanger’s means exactly what he says, though Netolitzky concludes that Belanger’s illegal activity is based on greed, rather than ideology: Netolitzky at V(D).
[34] In addition, Belanger has a lengthy record of sending this and other Canadian courts inappropriate communications, and claiming to file unorthodox demands and documents that Belanger says have a binding effect, and entitle Belanger (and/or his followers) to take steps to have court workers and decision makers arrested, prosecuted, and fined: Meads; Netolitzky.
[35] Courts of inherent jurisdiction have a broad authority to structure communications and interactions with persons so as to protect their operations and personnel, reviewed in JSG (Re), 2021 ABQB 555 at paras 8-13. Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSA 2000, c O-2.1, s 3(1)(b) requires this Court take reasonable and practical steps to prevent workplace harassment and bullying. In light of Belanger’s well-established pattern of abusive, threatening, and bullying communications, and Belanger’s simple rejection of court authority and processes, I conclude that any communications, materials, and candidate filings from Belanger should be subject to a preliminary review by an Administrative Justice of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
IV. Conclusion
[38] Belanger is prohibited from any participation in Alberta Court of King’s Bench proceedings, except where he, personally, is a named party. Belanger is prohibited from entering Alberta Courthouses, except where he is appearing before a court. Belanger is subject to communications restrictions so that Belanger may only communicate with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench via registered mail, a lawyer, or as authorized by court Order.
