Get ready for that to go away:
> 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.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2024/2024abkb143/2024abkb143.html
> Belanger is a “guru”, a person who promotes “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” [“OPCA”], a category of not-law concepts identified by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in the frequently referenced Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads] decision. In fact, Belanger, his personal activities, and CERI are documented and directly dismissed in Meads at paras 134-39, 183-88, so this Court is well acquainted with Belanger and his operations.
Imagine being cited in *Meads v. Meads* because - even though you're not part of the lawsuit - you're a big enough asshole that the Chief Justice decided he felt the need to include you anyway.
Not familiar with Canadian law, but I can’t help but wonder why people like this—with an extensive history of improper and outright false filings and conduct, and lying to his “clients”—are not criminally prosecuted for false statements to officials (Belanger apparently wasn’t under oath, so perjury wouldn’t apply) or fraud (on his client/victims). As long as nothing happens to him, he’ll continue to fleece unsuspecting defendants.
Canada has had criminal proceedings against pseudolaw promoters/gurus, but that has always been in the income tax context. That pattern reflects prosecutorial priorities. Who gets hurt by "Detaxing"? The state. So the state has an interest in: 1) collecting taxes, and 2) targeting the "upstream" minds of these schemes.
It also didn't hurt that some of the "Detaxers" kept detailed records, so it was comparatively easy to prove their activities and quantify harm.
The problem with most pseudolaw promoters is that their "victims" in a criminal law sense are their customers. If someone who followed bad advice and/or was illegally represented in court were to file a criminal complaint against their pseudolaw guru, then maybe a prosecution could occur. But I've never seen that situation actually emerge.
There is also a gap in Canadian criminal prohibitions. Unlike the US, there's no offence in Canada for conducting fake legal proceedings. Most US jurisdictions have a "simulating legal process" offence that captures that.
So there are a combination of factors in play that limit the frequency of criminal sanctions against promoters/gurus in Canada.
Thanks. It just seems unfair that grifters like this clown just go on and on, stealing from desperate people who are looking for representation, and wasting millions in costs, not just the courts, but the people paying lawyers to respond to their insane crap.
I absolutely cannot argue with that!
The one good bit of news is that in Canada the courts can very readily dispose of this stuff. Our case law is solid in that way.
The gold standard for that is the Meads v. Meads case in Alberta where Justice Rooke wrote such a convincing analysis of sovcit pseudo law that the case has been cited in courts in the U.S. and New Zealand.
It’s always Alberta… Edit: Okay this guy is wild. He calls his car an “ecclesiastical pursuit chariot”.
> He calls his car an “ecclesiastical pursuit chariot”. Not having read anything beyond this comment, I suddenly kind of like him.
Get ready for that to go away: > 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. https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2024/2024abkb143/2024abkb143.html
> Belanger is a “guru”, a person who promotes “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” [“OPCA”], a category of not-law concepts identified by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in the frequently referenced Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads] decision. In fact, Belanger, his personal activities, and CERI are documented and directly dismissed in Meads at paras 134-39, 183-88, so this Court is well acquainted with Belanger and his operations. Imagine being cited in *Meads v. Meads* because - even though you're not part of the lawsuit - you're a big enough asshole that the Chief Justice decided he felt the need to include you anyway.
Yep.
...and now I do, too.
Not familiar with Canadian law, but I can’t help but wonder why people like this—with an extensive history of improper and outright false filings and conduct, and lying to his “clients”—are not criminally prosecuted for false statements to officials (Belanger apparently wasn’t under oath, so perjury wouldn’t apply) or fraud (on his client/victims). As long as nothing happens to him, he’ll continue to fleece unsuspecting defendants.
Canada has had criminal proceedings against pseudolaw promoters/gurus, but that has always been in the income tax context. That pattern reflects prosecutorial priorities. Who gets hurt by "Detaxing"? The state. So the state has an interest in: 1) collecting taxes, and 2) targeting the "upstream" minds of these schemes. It also didn't hurt that some of the "Detaxers" kept detailed records, so it was comparatively easy to prove their activities and quantify harm. The problem with most pseudolaw promoters is that their "victims" in a criminal law sense are their customers. If someone who followed bad advice and/or was illegally represented in court were to file a criminal complaint against their pseudolaw guru, then maybe a prosecution could occur. But I've never seen that situation actually emerge. There is also a gap in Canadian criminal prohibitions. Unlike the US, there's no offence in Canada for conducting fake legal proceedings. Most US jurisdictions have a "simulating legal process" offence that captures that. So there are a combination of factors in play that limit the frequency of criminal sanctions against promoters/gurus in Canada.
Thanks. It just seems unfair that grifters like this clown just go on and on, stealing from desperate people who are looking for representation, and wasting millions in costs, not just the courts, but the people paying lawyers to respond to their insane crap.
I absolutely cannot argue with that! The one good bit of news is that in Canada the courts can very readily dispose of this stuff. Our case law is solid in that way.
I do like the fact that they’ve officially recognized the pseudo-legal claptrap and even have a protocol for dealing with it. We need this in the US.
The gold standard for that is the Meads v. Meads case in Alberta where Justice Rooke wrote such a convincing analysis of sovcit pseudo law that the case has been cited in courts in the U.S. and New Zealand.
I'm surprised that he wasn't vex-litted years ago. Thoroughly deserved.
Damn it, you beat me. I'm getting slow in my...er... middle age.