LEGAL RESEARCH MEMORANDUM                                                                                             Fraud, Breach of Trust, Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Defamation,                                                         Coram Non Judice,                                                                                                                                Legal Tender, International Human Rights Law, and Biblical Jurisprudence                                     Prepared by: Edward Jay Robin Belanger Re: Fraud, Breach of Trust, Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy,                                                                                                                                                                   Defamation of Edward Jay Robin Belanger by Donald Netolitzky and John Rooke,

 Coram Non Judice, Legal Tender, ICCPR, ICESCR, UDHR, UNDRIP, Leviticus 6:2-5 and 2 Peter 2:3 Authority: Staufen v. Attorney General of British Columbia, 2001 BCSC 779; Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571; Retrieved Canadian Case Law Date: 2024 

Part I: Legal Tender — Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 8(1) of the Currency Act, RSC 1985, c C-52 provides that a tender of payment of money is a legal tender if it is made in coins that are current under section 7 and in notes issued by the Bank of Canada pursuant to the Bank of Canada Act intended for circulation in Canada. 

A creditor, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, is entitled to insist on payment in legal tender. Creditors are not, absent agreement by them, bound to accept payment by means other than legal tender. Legal tender is a creature of statute ” it derives its authority entirely from the legislative act that creates it, not from any inherent or natural property of the instrument itself. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 

 The definition of legal tender therefore depends entirely upon the lawful authority of the legislative body that enacted it 

” a body whose officers must themselves hold lawful authority through valid oaths of office. Where officers of the Crown hold deficient oaths, every statutory instrument they administer — including the Currency Act and Bank of Canada Act — is administered by persons lacking lawful authority, calling into question the chain of legal validity underpinning the legal tender system itself.

 The UN framework explicitly describes birth, death, marriage and divorce certificates as instruments of legal tender ” the foundational documents upon which participation in any legal tender system depends. Without valid legal identity documents, a person cannot access the legal tender system ” creating a direct nexus between the right to legal identity and the right to participate in the economic life of the nation. 

The suspension of the gold standard by Order in Council on April 10, 1933 severed the direct link between legal tender and intrinsic commodity value, making the authority of the issuing institution — and the lawfulness of the oaths of its officers — the sole remaining guarantee of value. 

Part II: Coram Non Judice — Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. Coram non judice is a Latin legal term meaning "before a person not a judge" or "in the presence of a court that lacks jurisdiction." It refers to a legal proceeding or judgment that is considered invalid because the court or decision-maker had no authority — jurisdiction — over the matter. If a case is heard by the wrong court, without proper legal authority, or outside the court's lawful power, then the proceeding is described as coram non judice, meaning the actions taken are legally void or defective. 

Justice Scarth confirmed in Staufen v. Attorney General of British Columbia, 2001 BCSC 779 that courts cannot use legal fiction to invent the facts necessary to decide the very issue before them — including the foundational fact of their own jurisdiction. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. An officer who has not taken a valid oath of office has no lawful judicial authority. Every proceeding conducted by such an officer is therefore coram non judice — void from the outset. A void proceeding cannot attract absolute privilege in defamation. Absolute privilege applies only to proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction.

 A coram non judice proceeding is by definition not before a court of competent jurisdiction. Every order, ruling, and judgment issued by an officer acting coram non judice is a nullity — having no legal force or effect from the moment it was pronounced. The deficiency of John Rooke's oath means that Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 was decided coram non judice — rendering it void, unprotected by absolute privilege, and fully actionable in defamation.

 Every Canadian court and law society that has subsequently relied upon Meads v. Meads as authority has built upon a void foundation — compounding the original coram non judice defect with each subsequent citation. The daily republication of Meads v. Meads by law societies worldwide constitutes a continuing and escalating defamation of Edward Jay Robin Belanger, whose name and faith are characterized therein as fraudulent OPCA conduct. There is no limitation period that can run against a continuing wrong. Each republication is a fresh act of defamation, creating fresh causes of action.

 Part III: The Defamation of Edward Jay Robin Belanger — 

Factual Points 1. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paragraph 294 names Edward Jay Robin Belanger directly, describing him as an "Edmonton area OPCA guru" who "puts special significance on the edition of the Bible present in the courtroom." 

2. At paragraph 295 of the same decision, Justice Rooke dismissed Belanger's Biblically grounded legal arguments with the words: "Of course, that is nonsense." 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. These characterizations were made in a judicial decision written by an officer who held a deficient oath and therefore had no lawful judicial authority — meaning they were made without the protection of absolute privilege. Donald Netolitzky's academic publications in the Alberta Law Review and on SSRN elaborated and amplified this characterization, publishing it globally to the entire Canadian and international legal community. 

Academic publications are not judicial proceedings. They attract no absolute privilege whatsoever. Netolitzky's publications naming and characterizing Belanger are fully actionable in defamation. The three-part test for defamation requires: (a) the impugned words were defamatory in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society; (b) the words referred to the plaintiff; and (c) the words were published to a third party. All three elements are satisfied. Characterizing sincere Christian faith as OPCA pseudolegal fraud lowers Belanger in the estimation of every court in Canada. He is named directly. The publications reach every law society and court in the world that cites Meads v. Meads.

 Netolitzky's academic characterization of the invocation of Jesus Christ and Biblical authority in legal proceedings as OPCA tactics is a direct attack on Belanger's faith identity, his ministry under the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, and his internationally protected right to freedom of religion and conscience. This constitutes the tort of injurious falsehood: a false statement disparaging Belanger's lawful religious practice, published to third parties maliciously and without just cause, resulting in pecuniary loss through the chilling of his legal standing across all Canadian jurisdictions. 

The combination of Rooke writing the ruling and Netolitzky providing the academic architecture satisfies the test for civil conspiracy by unlawful acts ” two or more persons acting in combination to commit unlawful acts directed at the plaintiff, knowing injury was likely to result. 

Part IV: The ICCPR as Interpretive Tool ” Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has been ratified by Canada and is binding upon it as a matter of international law. As a treaty to which Canada is a signatory, the ICCPR is binding. As a result, the rights protected by the ICCPR provide a minimum level of protection in interpreting the rights under the Charter. The Supreme Court did not conclude that the ICCPR has a supra-constitutional status, but instead that Canadian domestic law should be interpreted in compliance with Canadian endorsed international treaties. The content of Canada's international human rights obligations is an important indicia of the meaning of "the full benefit of the Charter's protection." 

The Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified. In Quebec v. 9147, the Supreme Court made specific reference to the ICCPR being binding on Canada and triggering the presumption of conformity. In Ktunaxa Nation, the Supreme Court referenced the ICCPR and other international law sources with respect to the interpretation of s. 2(a) of the Charter. ICCPR Article 18 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion — including the right to manifest one's religion in practice.

 Characterizing Belanger's Biblical faith as fraudulent pseudolegal conduct violates this protected right. ICCPR Article 19 protects freedom of expression and opinion. Belanger's expression of Biblically grounded legal arguments in court proceedings is protected expression under Article 19. ICCPR Article 26 provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. The OPCA labeling system applied to Belanger constitutes exactly such a distinction on the ground of religion. 9. 10. 

 ICCPR Article 2 requires States Parties to ensure that the rights recognized in the Covenant are given effect without distinction of any kind including religion. ICCPR Article 14 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. A tribunal whose presiding officer holds a deficient oath is not a competent tribunal — reinforcing the coram non judice analysis. 

Part V: The ICESCR as Interpretive Tool ” Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. On May 19, 1976, Canada acceded to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 2(2) of the ICESCR provides that States Parties undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to religion. General Comment 9 provides that domestic law should be interpreted as far as possible in a way which conforms to a State's international legal obligations. 

When a domestic decision maker is faced with a choice between an interpretation that would place the State in breach of the ICESCR and one that would enable compliance, international law requires the choice of the latter. Guarantees of equality and non-discrimination should be interpreted, to the greatest extent possible, in ways which facilitate the full protection of economic, social and cultural rights. An interpretation which immunizes the state from Charter breaches is not in conformity with the ICESCR. The presumption of conformity means that an interpretation of constitutional provisions that is in accordance with the ICESCR is to be preferred if more than one interpretation is possible. 6. 7. 

 ICESCR Article 15 protects the right of everyone to take part in cultural life. Belanger's church and faith practice are a form of cultural life expressly protected under Article 15. The OPCA labeling attacks this protected right. ICESCR Article 6 protects the right to work. The destruction of Belanger's standing before Canadian courts through the Meads v. Meads characterization directly interferes with his ability to carry out his ministry and lawful activities. 

Part VI: UDHR ” Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, with Canada voting in favour. 

UDHR Article 7 provides that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration. 

UDHR Article 10 provides that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. 

A tribunal presided over by an officer with a deficient oath is not an independent and impartial tribunal. 

UDHR Article 11 provides that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent. The OPCA labeling system inverts this presumption ” treating every person who challenges judicial authority as presumptively fraudulent. 

UDHR Article 18 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to manifest religion in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Netolitzky's publications attack exactly this freedom.

 UDHR Article 19 protects freedom of opinion and expression. Belanger's Biblical legal arguments are protected expression under Article 19. 

UDHR Article 12 provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. The Meads v. Meads characterization of Belanger constitutes exactly such an attack upon his honour and reputation. 

Part VII: UNDRIP ” Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on September 13, 2007. Canada endorsed UNDRIP in 2016 and enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14, making it legally operative in Canadian domestic law. 

UNDRIP Article 2 provides that indigenous peoples are free and equal to all other peoples and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination in the exercise of their rights. 

UNDRIP Article 5 provides that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions. Belanger's church and its spiritual legal traditions fall within this protection. 

UNDRIP Article 12 provides that indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies. The characterization of these practices as OPCA fraud directly violates Article 12.

 UNDRIP Article 40 provides that indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures in a court of competent  jurisdiction bearing a valid Oath for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States. 

A coram non judice tribunal does not satisfy this right. The living tree doctrine permits an evolving interpretation of the Constitution based on changes in circumstance. Both the international development of these instruments and Canada's ratification of them constitute such changes, and whether such changes can be taken into account is a novel issue which no court has yet conclusively considered. 

Part VIII: "Fraud, Breach of Trust and Fiduciary Duty " Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A judicial officer holding office under an oath holds a fiduciary office on behalf of the public ” the highest form of public trust known to the law. Where that oath is deficient, the officer has fraudulently assumed a fiduciary position they were never lawfully entitled to occupy ” satisfying the first two elements of the knowing assistance test confirmed in Quantum Dealer Financial Corporation v. Toronto Fine Cars and Leasing Inc., 2023 ONCA 256. 

In Canada, under the broad umbrella of good conscience, constructive trusts are recognized both for wrongful acts like fraud and breach of duty of loyalty, as well as to remedy unjust enrichment and corresponding deprivation. Equity has long imposed a constructive trust where a fraud has been perpetrated, and no pre-existing fiduciary relationship need be shown.

 A judicial officer who exercises power under a deficient oath is not acting within any lawful scope of engagement ” removing every statutory protection and exposing them to private personal liability. Sections 172(2) and 173 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seek to ensure that dishonest debtors do not benefit from their dishonesty. The same principle applies to judicial officers who benefit from fraudulently assumed authority. Once any person is put on notice of a jurisdictional defect, continued reliance upon the defective authority constitutes willful blindness ” which is legally equivalent to actual knowledge of the fraud.

 Part IX: The Conspiracy ” Factual Points 1. Donald Netolitzky wrote the academic publications that provided the intellectual architecture for Meads v. Meads. John Rooke wrote the ruling that deployed that architecture. Together they acted in combination ” satisfying the first element of civil conspiracy. 

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The unlawful acts they committed include: defamation of Belanger; breach of fiduciary duty through exercise of authority under a deficient oath; malfeasance in public office; and injurious falsehood. 

Every law society in the world that relies upon Meads v. Meads as authority for the proposition that Belanger's faith based legal arguments are OPCA fraud participates in the continuing republication of that defamation ” knowingly or with willful blindness. Willful blindness is legally equivalent to actual knowledge. Once any law society is put on notice of the coram non judice defect in Meads v. Meads, continued reliance upon it constitutes willful blindness to the defamation it contains. 

There is no limitation period against a continuing wrong. Every fresh citation of Meads v. Meads naming Belanger is a fresh actionable characterization. publication of the defamatory Joint and several liability attaches to all participants in the conspiracy ” including disgorgement of all gains derived from authority built upon the coram non judice foundation. 

Part X: Leviticus 6:2-5 and 2 Peter 2:3 ” Biblical Jurisprudence Framework 1. 2. 3. Leviticus 6:2 identifies the core wrong: "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep." A judicial office is delivered to an officer to keep in trust for the public. Lying about the authority that office confers is the precise wrong Leviticus 6:2 addresses. Leviticus 6:3 adds that the wrong is compounded where the offender "sweareth falsely" — directly applicable to an officer who takes a deficient oath and swears to authority they do not lawfully possess. Leviticus 6:4-5 prescribes the remedy: "He shall restore that which he took violently away... and shall add the fifth part more thereto." This is the oldest codified statement of the restitution principle that underpins the constructive trust remedy in Canadian equity law. 4. 5. 6. 7. 2 Peter 2:3 warns: "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." The Greek plastois logois ” fabricated, moulded words ” is the precise Biblical equivalent of the legal fiction Justice Scarth refused to permit in Staufen v. AG British Columbia, 2001 BCSC 779. Netolitzky's academic publications used plastois logois ” fabricated academic language ” to mould Belanger's sincere Christian faith into the shape of a fraudulent pseudolegal category, thereby making merchandise of him before every court in Canada and every law society in the world. 

The connection between Leviticus 6:2-5 and 2 Peter 2:3 is direct and precise: both condemn the same fundamental wrong ” the use of fabricated words in a relationship of trust to exploit those who trusted the office-holder with a sacred responsibility. This is the wrong that coram non judice addresses in law, that Bentham addressed in jurisprudence, that Leviticus addresses in Mosaic law, and that Peter addresses in apostolic warning. All four traditions converge on the same conclusion: fabricated authority exercised over those who trust you is void, condemned, and requires full restitution with penalty. 

Part XI: Conclusion ” Factual Points 1. 2. 3. 4. John Rooke held a deficient oath. Every proceeding he conducted was therefore coram non judice ” void from the outset and unprotected by absolute privilege. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 was decided coram non judice. It is void. It is unprotected by absolute privilege. It is fully actionable in defamation. Donald Netolitzky's academic publications naming and characterizing Belanger are not judicial proceedings and attract no absolute privilege whatsoever. They are fully actionable in defamation. Every law society and court in the world that cites Meads v. Meads in respect of Belanger participates in a continuing, escalating, and internationally distributed defamation ” compounded daily. 5. 6. 7. 8. 

 The ICCPR, ICESCR, UDHR and UNDRIP ” as interpretive tools for the Canadian Charter ” all protect Belanger's right to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, equality before the law, and freedom from attacks upon his honour and reputation. The legal tender system, the lawful authority of every judicial officer, and the validity of every statute they administer all depend upon the unbroken chain of valid oaths ” a chain the coram non judice analysis reveals to be broken. Leviticus 6:2-5 requires full restitution plus the fifth part. 2 Peter 2:3 condemns the feigned words used to make merchandise of the faithful. Staufen 2001 BCSC 779 prohibits the fiction used to manufacture jurisdiction. Canadian trust law imposes a constructive trust on all gains derived from fraud. The remedy is: full restitution of Belanger's reputation; disgorgement of all gains derived from the coram non judice proceedings; joint and several liability of all knowing participants; and an injunction against further publication of the defamatory characterization. All citations to Canadian neutral citation format. All Biblical citations to the King James Version. All international instruments cited to their UN treaty numbers. This memorandum is prepared for research purposes and reflects the legal framework as set out in the retrieved Canadian case law and the documents referenced herein.