Minister Belanger Sues Judge Rooke!

[eric]

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

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.

The courts in Canada, on the rare instances where someone is charged under CCC176, have consistently ruled that the obstructive/disruptive act does not necessarily have to be an unlawful act if it occurred under other circumstances. The courts, for over one hundred years, (CCC 176 is often characterized as a zombie law) always follow the same analysis of the facts:
1. there was some form of religious ceremony, observance, or procession;
2. the accused obstructed/ disrupted said ceremony and/or celebrant.

Here's an extreme example: If I stand on a street corner in Canada peacefully distributing pamphlets outlining why the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster has it all wrong and pasta must only be boiled for seven minutes it is perfectly lawful behavior. If I do exactly the same thing on the sidewalk in front of the CFSM meeting hall or even worse inside, the same behavior is unlawful. Belanger has it right in that almost any action can be viewed as an obstruction, however there isn't any case law defining what is a religious ceremony.
Here's a sample brief on the whole issue since CCC 176 was due to be struck down this year:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 0.2017.pdf

Btw, it survived as of December 13 of this year since almost every religious organization of every stripe petitioned for it to remain.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite ... 21C51E#a16

[eric]

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;

I beg to differ, in R. v. Gauthier (1905), 11 C.C.C. 263 (Que. K.B.), the accused was convicted on appeal. That being said, from much more modern times in Skoke-Graham v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 106 the convictions were struck down on appeal.

[Burnaby49]

After giving Belanger's magic bullet Criminal Code provision some thought I don't see how Section 176 of the Criminal Code is of any use to Belanger and his so-called ministers. Section 176 was established to protect Christian services and clergy but what, if anything, is specifically Christian in Belanger's follower's use of CERI's stated belief system? Every instance I've reported where Belanger's ministers have claimed to have been harassed, intimidated, or threatened while performing their Christian duties as CERI ministers have, in actual fact, been situations where the individuals were engaged in blatant, totally self-serving attempts at personal gain with no religious significance whatever. The claimed CERI beliefs were used only as a tactic to forward personal financial or legal goals. Belanger has never, as far as I'm aware, claimed his ministers were harassed when engaged in actual religious activities where they were not first and foremost using CERI in attempts to screw the system either financially or legally.

It's obvious that Canadian court will not just unquestioningly accept CERI's totally nonsensical claims that its ministers are exempt from all laws in Canada because of their claimed religious beliefs. If this position was correct then all Canadians can void their debts and ignore all laws by pretending equivalent beliefs. So courts, as Alfred Potvin found, are going to be very skeptical of any claims to special treatment and rights based on claimed beliefs.

An initial review of a CERI claim must start with an analysis of whether or not these are true religious beliefs or just self-serving opportunist bullshit. If the latter then all of Belanger's legal gibberish is irrelevant to any court action. Judge Rooke specifically addressed this issue in the Potvin decision where he said;

[103] CERI is an Edmonton-based OPCA movement headed by a conman guru “minister” or “paraclete”, Edward Jay Robin Belanger: Meads v Meads, at paras 134-139, 183-188. Though members of CERI claim to be King James Bible literalists, this belief is an affectation, rather than real. For example, Belanger has formerly self-identified as a “Reformed Druid”. The chief focus of this group is use of pseudolaw to evade their legal obligations and to engage in criminal activities, often centered on marijuana trafficking, or driving in motor vehicles they claim are outside government regulation because those are “Ecclesiastical Pursuit Chariots”.

[122] Canadian case law and legislation in certain circumstances does create an obligation on certain actors to accommodate religious beliefs, for example: Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpsons-Sears, 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 536, 23 DLR (4th) 321; Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970, 95 DLR (4th) 577. Charter, s 2(a) states “Everyone has ... freedom of conscience and religion”. Religion is one of the enumerated grounds on which discrimination is prohibited: Charter, s 15.

[123] However, a simple claim of religious belief is not what triggers these rights. Rather it is a “sincere religious belief” or “sincere non-religious belief” that is required: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 SCR 551; Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 567; and Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16 (CanLII), [2015] 2 SCR 3.

[124] As for proof of that, “[t]he more unreasonable the alleged belief is, the easier it is to draw the inference that it was not honestly held.”: R v Zundel (1987), 1987 CanLII 121 (ON CA), 35 DLR (4th) 338, 18 OAC 161 (Ont CA); see also R v Zundel, 1992 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 731 at para 100, 95 DLR (4th) 202.

[125] Here Mr. Potvin has a very big problem. First, his litigation history does not support that his objection to having to pay for his mortgage has a religious basis. He started off with an entirely secular “Get Out Of Debt Free” Three/Five Letters scheme. Then he argued he owned copyright in his own name - in all capital letters - and had registered that with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (October 2, 2017 Affidavit). Then it was “kate of kaea”, and her nearly incomprehensible “LEGAL NAME FRAUD” (October 20, 2017 Affidavit). Next, Mr. Potvin became an acolyte (or at least subscriber) of Freeman, Allen Nelson Boisjoli (December 20, 2017 Affidavit). Finally, at last, he found religion, in the form of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International and its “minister” Belanger.

[126] The obvious implication from that progression is that that Mr. Potvin’s only interest is to find some pseudolaw key that will fit the foreclosure litigation lock and gift him a free house. I am sure he believes that the law does or should not apply to him, but that is a means to an end. He appears to be entirely mercenary in how he gets there.

Potvin (Re),
2018 ABQB 652
http://canlii.ca/t/htt3m

While a minister of a religion must be assumed to have a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of the theological doctrines and beliefs of that religion none of Belanger's ministers reviewed in Quatloos seem to have any real understanding of CERI's purported belief system apart from the claimed financial advantages it gives them. Minister Williams, in suing various defendants in Williams v Payette, is apparently so ignorant of the religious doctrine that serves as the entire basis of his lawsuit that he requested that the Federal Court of Canada allow Belanger to testify as an expert witness on his behalf to explain to the court what Williams claims are his own religious beliefs.

So, on that basis alone, it is extremely unlikely that any CERI minister could persuade a court that he holds sincere religious beliefs that afford him protection under section 176.

But there are also more legal aspects of Section 176 that defeat all of Belanger's idiotic claims. Section 76 reads;

Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman

· 176 (1) Every one who
·
o (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
o
o (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)
o
§ (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.

Note that there are two separate sections. We'll start with section (2) because that's the easiest to dismiss. It refers to protecting a "meeting" or "assemblage" of "persons". There are two problems here for Belanger. First, as I've previously stated, CERI does not have congregations. There are only individual ministers. So there are no CERI meetings or assemblages to protect since there has to be at least two people gathered together to meet either term. Individuals, such as minister Williams waving his printed copy of Section 176 at arresting police, don't qualify for section (2) protection.

In any case Section 176(2) applies to only "persons" as being under its protection. But Belanger, the sole arbitrator of CERI doctrine, has always vehemently denied that either he or any of his appointed CERI ministers are persons as defined in law. As he said in the covering letter to Williams v Rooke;

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.

So Belanger, as a core article of his faith, has ''emphatically" voluntarily chosen to exempt himself and his ministers from the protection of Section 176(2).

On to 176(1). It specifically protects only a "clergyman or minister". That's why Belanger has awarded ministerial titles to all of his followers. He apparently thinks that this cute trick guarantees that the courts will have to accept that his motley crew are indeed Christian ministers entitled to 176(1) protection. But that's his take, it's up to the courts to confirm their religious status for Criminal Code purposes. Obviously Canadian courts aren't just going to accept the bald, self-serving statements from plaintiffs or defendants that they are real ministers deserving of 176(1) protection without evidence that it is in fact a valid designation with a real church awarding it. I doubt that they will accept that some Edmonton ex-druid can just scatter legitimate minister titles around to all and sundry like party favours.

By a real church I mean a religious denomination with an actual structure of churches and congregations and with a hierarchy of church oversight and management, not just the obsessions of one old guy in a basement pumping out Youtube videos. A religion that has an actual formal written doctrine and a standardized liturgy of worship rather than just whatever scattered thoughts Belanger chooses to babble out on his video clips, and which has an educational curriculum and instructional program to train ministers on the doctrines and beliefs of the church. All that CERI has to cover all of the above is Belanger doing whatever it is that he does.

These factors will all probably be considered by a court facing a CERI minister claiming 176(1) protection and I can't see any of Belanger's followers that I've reviewed to date making the cut.

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby, I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head as it were. At least to my slightly jaundiced eye, it would appear that the Paracyte's rationale, if you choose to dignify it that much, is that he chose to call all his suckers acolytes ministers so that they, and he, could claim to be ministers and acting as ministers or doing ministerial functions regardless of when and what they were actually doing. That is the ONLY reason I can see behind it. The problem remaining again returns back to the problem that 176 doesn't really work that way either. So he loses again.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Looking on the bright side, he did give the world 'Ecclesiastic Pursuit Chariots', which must have given many folk a bit of a laugh.

[notorial dissent]

To see, hear, know Berlanger is to laugh, at him.

[Burnaby49]

After a five month absence from the glamorous giddy world of Youtube minister Belanger has coughed up another video, Part 3 of an (at the moment) three part series on how to open a bank account. I know, I know, in the average Quatloos reader's world you walk into a bank and tell them you want to open an account. Fifteen minutes later you're done. So why does this simple procedure require three videos? Because gullible fools like we Quatloos followers don't understand the hidden dangers of just letting the bank do its thing any way it wants. Everything in the sovereign world, even deceptively simple acts like opening a new bank account, require extensive, elaborate rituals and the precisely timed sequence of various arcane procedures to give protection against an omnipotent and always harassing Canadian government. Belanger's three videos on this topic have a combined running time of over an hour with no guarantee he's done with it yet so the way to a Christian bank account is obviously not easy and is fraught with traps and pitfalls.

What are these hazards? If you just sleepwalk your way through the bank's claimed requirements you'll have a bank account at the end of it but THE BANK WILL KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!! because the bank required you to identify yourself with government issued documents such as driver's licenses or birth certificates. Worst of all the banks will want your social insurance number, the government issued number assigned to virtually all Canadians and used for multiple purposes including filing income tax returns. And the government can trace the account through the number. You can see where this might be a concern to Canadians who need a bank account but don't want the government snooping around in things that are clearly none of its business, like how much they earn every year from that little plumbing business that they're not telling the Canada Revenue Agency about. Well Belanger has the solution, a CERI certified path to force a bank to open an account for you without your providing any government issued proof of identification. Belanger doesn't frame it that way, he's not concerned about some paltry issue like tax evasion, he's giving this information as part of his ecclesiastical guidance on how to lead a good Christian life. He points this our right at the beginning of Part 1 of the series where he said that he asked a bank teller "We're here today as a group of men and we wish to open up an ecclesiastical account, we don't wish to be commercial and we need to know, will you discriminate against us because of our sincerely held faith and beliefs?" Apparently this did the trick for Belanger but this is as far as I've ever gone in the video so I can't confirm this.

Part 1; "How to open up a Bank Account with no government ID numbers" was released almost five years ago, in January 2014, and has had 75,000 viewings and 341 comments;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD6lBmcodg

The next in the series - "Opening a bank Account without government ID part 2" was released a year and a half ago and, to date, has had 912 viewings and six comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcwmO93eOxA&t=43s

Part 3 has just been released so obviously it hasn't had time to acquire a track record of viewings and comments. So far 91 viewings and 6 comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc2E41LwI_0&t=171s

Now if those 75,000 viewers of part 1 were all god fearing individuals with sincerely held Christian beliefs just seeking religious instruction from minister Belanger why were there less than a thousand of them returning for part 2? I'm guessing that mobs of hopeful viewers of the first video marched into their banks with the fifteen legal dictionaries Belanger required along with their other non-government documents and demanded that the bank open an ecclesiastical account for them without them providing any official ID. And the banks told them to get lost.

But all this is incidental to the topic of this discussion, Belanger's lawsuit against Judge Rooke for defamation. Incidental except for a few comments in the new video. At 6:15 he's on about the usual, capitalization, dead things, and tombstones which leads to an old perennial, having sex with corpses. Then, at 7:02, he says the reason he's talking about necrophilia is because it's important to establish to "the bank" that part of the reason you don't use government ID is because the government absolutely refuses to recognize your faith and beliefs of not associating with dead things or showing respect to persons; "You're being discriminated and that requires a lawsuit which will be coming soon and we already have one for defamation". Then back to discussing the foisted unilateral agreement you've already sent the bank and they've agreed to by not replying to it.

A brief comment in passing but you heard it here first. Belanger is planning yet another lawsuit against some government party, this one for discrimination. Let's hope he picks the right court to file it in this time.

And, another comment. Belanger's been at this a long time, perhaps twenty years, and during that time he's made no changes whatever to reflect the myriad losses and disasters his followers have faced as a consequence of following his advice. In Belanger's mind it's still 1998 and everything is still fresh and innovative. Dead things, capitalization, no respect for persons, the King James bible, Section 176, all of these things are still, in his reality, guaranteed winners in his followers' fights to renege on their debts, not insure their cars, stop foreclosures on their homes, and sundries like minister Williams attempt to claim a school as his own property. Perhaps nothing will ever dent Belanger's supreme confidence that he's been shown the way to beat the system through his Christian beliefs. At this late point in his life he's gone too far, has too much invested in his decades of obsession to start thinking critically about the viability of his theories in the real world outside of his videos. If you think that an extreme comment watch the first and third videos of this series. Note any change at all in his self-certainty and the contents of the message after over a decade of failure?

[notorial dissent]

Sorry, there must be some paint somewhere needs watching dry.

[wserra]

I split Josh's recycled nonsense to its own thread. God knows it had nothing to do with Belanger.

[Burnaby49]

Why stop at Belanger? As far as I can see it has nothing to do with anything.

[Normal Wisdom]

I admit reading the whole thing was tough going at times and it must pale into insignificance in comparison with Burnaby's efforts to wade through all the source material to bring it to us. However, all the effort is justified ten times over simply by exposing the phrase "ecclesiastical pursuit chariot" to a wider audience. I think I may carry that with me until my (hopefully still reasonably far off) dying day.

[Burnaby49]

This was nothing, NOTHING compared to the massive volumes of rubbish I had to wade through when recording the saga of the Volks losing their house. I spent the better part of a day at the Federal Court of Canada Registry going through an incredible volume of rubbish that Belanger had instructed the Volks to file as part of their court challenge to the foreclosure of their home. I'm probably the only person who actually read it all. Or even any of it. I guarantee the court didn't bother because the Federal Court didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case making any filings irrelevant.

I thought, while on the topic, to check out how Williams v. Rooke was doing over at Federal Court. Not much going on. This on December 31;

Letter from Plaintiff dated 30-DEC-2018 "Notice to the Court and Notice to You ... Notice of Continued Defamation and Misconduct by a Federal court Defendant - Undue Influence and Tampering Blessings and greetings to you (...)" received on 31-DEC-2018

I suppose it might be of some slight interest to see what it is but it's probably just Belanger claiming that Rooke, by defending himself, is continuing his defamation. Perhaps Rooke had agreed with a huge unilateral agreement like the one in Williams v. Payette and is violating it by not agreeing to everything Belanger says.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Despite really devoted efforts by British loonies, it still seems we have to rely on Canada for the really heavyweight nonsense, ably balancec by the heavy boot of the estimable Judge Rooke.

[Burnaby49]

It's been a while since I checked up on Belanger's DOA attempt to sue Judge Rooke. The last time I reviewed the lawsuit's Federal Court records was just before Christmas two months ago. So I decided to check again to see if there is anything to update. And there is. A gibbet with a waiting, dangling noose, a hangman (in this case a woman) and a blindfolded Belanger trudging up the makeshift stairs to his summary execution. It's all there and not even particularly between the lines.

The 2019 file postings start as everyday routine busywork necessary to get a case to trial. Each side serving various things on the other and filing things in court. Belanger is at least serious enough to be filing promptly and not letting the case languish like Williams v Payette (to be discussed shortly). Then, on January 24th, this;

Letter from Defendant dated 24-JAN-2019 .....notwithstanding the failure of personal service and purported "representation" by the Mr William, we write to inform the court that we will be filing a motion to, among other things, strike the claim in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 221, and therefore no proceeding should be commenced in the interim to note our client in default. The defendant's materials will be filed shortly. cc to counsels received on 24-JAN-2019

Striking the claim means throwing the entire case out for having no legal basis. This could be because the defendant thinks the case has no legally sustainable basis at all or because, as I've already noted, the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear it regardless of its merits. This lack of jurisdiction has doomed the lawsuit from the day it was filed.

Instead of a reasoned reply Belanger immediately responded with inane gibberish;

Letter from Plaintiff dated 25-JAN-2019 "To the private men and women, the alleged Defendant and their alleged representative(s). Greetings and blessings to you. You allege that you represent the Defendants in our Claim T-2105-18. Prior to any further communication, the Claimants require to know, as we have not had dealings with each other, if you are a man or a woman, and we require proof of your authorized representation of the Defendant in our claim..." received on 25-JAN-2019

Alleged Defendants? Belanger is suing the defendants. How can he claim that they are alleged defendants when he has named them in his Statement of Claim? In any case this focused the court's attention on the stupidity of the case. A dangerous development for Belanger. The Court registry asked theCourt for help in figuring out what the hell Belanger had sent them;

Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 29-JAN-2019 re: seeking directions concerning the Notice of Motion submitted by Edward Jay Robin (Belanger) received on January 23rd, 2019

Resulting in this very ominous development;

Written directions received from the Court: Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary dated 31-JAN-2019 directing that "The Registry seeks directions from the Court, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, in respect of the filing of a Notice of Motion submitted for filing by minister Edward Jay Robin. The Notice of Motion is afflicted by multiple procedural defects, including, but not limited to the fact that it is not accompanied by proof of service on the other parties. The notice of motion is accordingly refused for filing. (...)" placed on file on 31-JAN-2019 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

So a Prothonotary has been assigned to the file. Never a good sign. As I've explained elsewhere a Prothonotary is a Federal Court official, not a judge, but with some judicial powers. While I believe that a Prothonotary cannot hold actual court hearings he (in the current case she) can dismiss cases which are clearly hopeless based on the evidence in the various filings made by the parties. In effect a Prothonotary is a gatekeeper throwing out the garbage that it's not worth wasting an actual judge's time on. And Belanger and crew have been assigned a Prothonotary to handle their case. Here's a quote from a Prothonotary's decision that I filed in relation to the Steinkeys, a tax evading couple;

[5] I see no need to waste valuable court time to write extensive reasons given that I completely agree with the written representations filed by the moving parties. Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ protestations to the opposite, they clearly fall within a class of individuals described in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571 (Meads) as “OPCA litigants”, who follow a well-known path of illogic, presumption, and pseudo-legal rants. The pleading before me is a classic case of a vexatious party seeking to foist on the Crown a unilateral agreement and trust obligations based on nonsensical arguments, as referred to by Mr. Justice Rooke in Meads at para 447

[447] OPCA litigants frequently attempt to unilaterally foist obligations on other litigants, peace officers, state actors, or the court and court personnel. These foisted obligations take many forms. None, of course, creates any binding legal obligation. In that sense, these are yet more ‘magic hats’.

6] It is plain and obvious that documents that purport to unilaterally impose an obligation on another party have no legal effect: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para 4. It follows that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

[7] For the sake of completeness, I should also briefly add that the Statement of Claim should be struck against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Mary Elizabeth Windsor and the Governor General of Canada as there are no allegations made against them personally. The pleading should also be struck against the Alberta Defendants as the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over the provincial actors. Moreover, and more importantly, the Statement of Claim should be struck on the grounds that it constitutes an improper collateral attack of criminal proceedings before another court. The Federal Court has no business interfering with prosecutorial discretion or staying criminal proceedings.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 0&p=240781

Note that one ground that Prothonotary Lafreniere used in this ruling was the Federal Court's lack of jurisdiction over a lawsuit against Alberta Court officials. Sound familiar?

Desperation sets in;

****** CANCELLED ****** Letter from Minister David Williams dated 04-FEB-2019 Their intent is to attempt to file a second additional claim. received on 04-FEB-2019

Then;

Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Plaintiff with respect to the Direction of the Court (Tabib P.) dated 31-JAN-2019 (Document ID 12) placed on file on 05-FEB-2019

Which I assume means that Prothonotary Tabib is laying down the law to Belanger and crew. Shape up or ship out. This results in a cry for help;

****** CANCELLED ****** Letter from Plaintiff to the Court dated 06-FEB-2019 requiring direction on what would be deemed appropriate and acceptable personal service of this particular Defendant. received on 06-FEB-2019

****** CANCELLED ****** Letter from Plaintiff dated 07-FEB-2019 In response to the letter from the Defendants (ID 9) received on 07-FEB-2019

And confusion from the Plaintiffs asking for help to figure out what the court has directed them to do;

Written Submissions on behalf of Plaintiff concerning Court Directions (Tabib P.) dated 31-JAN-2019 filed on 15-FEB-2019

They finally cough something up;

Affidavit of service of minister David Williams sworn on 21-FEB-2019 on behalf of Plaintiff confirming service of Direction Response Written Submission Revision 1 190215 and Direction Response Written Submission Authorities - Part 2 upon Defendant by telecopier on 15-FEB-2019 confirming service Direction Response Written Submission Revision 1 and Direction Response Written Submission Authorities - Part 2 upon Defendant and Nadia Effendi, Christine Muir, Teagan Markin and Nikki Kheiritash of BLG by email on 15-FEB-2019 filed on 21-FEB-2019

Which is promptly questioned by the Court registry;

Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 21-FEB-2019 re: the Plaintiffs' and the Defendant's Written Submissions and Book of Authoritied pursuant to the Court's Direction (Tabib P.) dated 31-JAN-2019 and seeking directions concerning miscellaneous documents submitted by the Plaintiffs that are not permitted under the Direction

After the registry requested help (directions) from the court in respect to Belanger's gibberish filings a judge got involved and, while accepting some of Belanger's crap, rejected other filings as not being acceptable under the court's directions.

Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan dated 21-FEB-2019 directing that "The Submissions of February 14, 2019 and the apparent corrected copy of February 15, 2019, the letter explaining the corrections and the Books of Authorities, all of which are filed by the Plaintiffs, can be accepted for filing. The Defendant's Submissions and Book of Authorities can be accepted for filing as well. The documents under Tab 6 are not in accordance with the Prothonotary's Direction and shall not be accepted." placed on file on 22-FEB-2019 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

So where does this leave us? I'm guessing that the plaintiff's cancelled "second additional claim" was an attempt by Belanger to add a batch of new parties to the lawsuit and the "miscellaneous documents submitted by the Plaintiffs that are not permitted under the Direction" are masses of Belanger's totally irrelevant gibberish that he tried to swamp the court with. Probably similar to the masses of incomprehensible drivel that Belanger had the Volks file in their Federal Court action that I mentioned earlier in this discussion;

This was nothing, NOTHING compared to the massive volumes of rubbish I had to wade through when recording the saga of the Volks losing their house. I spent the better part of a day at the Federal Court of Canada Registry going through an incredible volume of rubbish that Belanger had instructed the Volks to file as part of their court challenge to the foreclosure of their home. I'm probably the only person who actually read it all. Or even any of it. I guarantee the court didn't bother because the Federal Court didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case making any filings irrelevant.

Clearly the court has had enough of Belanger this time around and is now driving events rather than responding to them. This can only mean, at least to me, that we are close to the action being struck without leave to amend, probably for lack of jurisdiction.

You can read the whole sad story here;

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

Be advised youj may well be asked a devilishly clever and difficult skill testing question. I was required to answer 2+2 =? Thank god I was once an accountant.

Now about Williams v Payette where judge Rooke is also being sued but just peripherally. The last entry in the court record was in early January and it has languished untouched since. I'm guessing the lawsuit is going to be struck off for lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff. If not the Federal Court will do the same as they are going to do with Williams v Rooke and strike it for lack of jurisdiction. Whichever way the court goes Williams v Payette is dead too.

[Tevildo]

Affidavit of service of minister David Williams sworn on 21-FEB-2019 on behalf of Plaintiff confirming service of Direction Response Written Submission Revision 1 190215 and Direction Response Written Submission Authorities - Part 2 upon Defendant by telecopier on 15-FEB-2019 confirming service Direction Response Written Submission Revision 1 and Direction Response Written Submission Authorities - Part 2 upon Defendant and Nadia Effendi, Christine Muir, Teagan Markin and Nikki Kheiritash of BLG by email on 15-FEB-2019 filed on 21-FEB-2019

Entirely off topic, but - telecopier? Presumably not an original 1969 Group 1 Xerox Magnafax Telecopier™? I'd guess this is the Canadian equivalent of Law French.

[Burnaby49]

Probably means that state of the art piece of equipment favoured by government, a Fax machine.

[KickahaOta]

I always thought that "telecopier" was a better name anyway; "facsimile machine" tells you very little -- after all, regular copy machine makes facsimiles too.

[Tevildo]

The langauge could have gone that way, of course, and Xerox have never been particularly hot on trademark protection. However, fax machines had been around for decades before the Magnafax; it was the first one that could be used over a normal PSTN telephone line, hence the name (so it's "telephone copier", not "distant copier"). I was just amused that the Canadian courts seem to have adopted the much less common genericized trademark as their official term.

[Burnaby49]

The langauge could have gone that way, of course, and Xerox have never been particularly hot on trademark protection. However, fax machines had been around for decades before the Magnafax; it was the first one that could be used over a normal PSTN telephone line, hence the name (so it's "telephone copier", not "distant copier"). I was just amused that the Canadian courts seem to have adopted the much less common genericized trademark as their official term.

It's just a guess on my part but Canadian court systems, and legal firms, can be really, really old school. I'm a decade gone from the Canada Revenue Agency so I can't talk about current technological usage however until I retired legal firms were big on faxing back and forth. I'd negotiate settlements with taxpayer representatives on subjective audit issues (the CRA staff have can't negotiate on legal issues, the law is the law, but they have a lot of flexibility on more subjective issues like the deductibility of claimed expenses) and if we came to an oral settlement agreement I'd often get formal signed written agreements from taxpayer's reps by fax.

[Philistine]

The CRA will now accept scanned and attached pdf documents via email thankfully.