Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050 Date: 20181220 Docket: 1803 20494 Registry: Edmonton James Kenneth Knutson Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision in Knutson #2 of the Honourable Mr. Justice D.R.G. Thomas _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] In a decision reported as Knutson (Re) , 2018 ABQB 858 [ Knutson #1 ] I concluded that James Kenneth Knutson [Knutson] had employed since 2016 a broad spectrum of abusive pseudolegal strategies in his attempts to evade enforcement of his credit card and mortgage debts. His litigation arguments were “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” or “OPCA”, a class of spurious “pseudolaw” concepts which are sold to litigants by conmen “gurus” who promise extraordinary but false benefits: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 , 543 AR 215.

These illusionary promises include free money, debt elimination, “get out of jail free cards”, immunity from income tax, and “travelling” - unlimited motor vehicle use. OPCA ideas sound like law and use legal terminology and references, but have been consistently rejected by Canadian courts. [ 2 ] All OPCA constitute an abuse of court processes.

The employing of OPCA strategies is a basis on which a court may impose access restrictions through what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”: Meads v Meads ; R v Fearn , 2014 ABQB 233 at para 49 , 586 AR 182; Chutskoff v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92 , 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 , 588 AR 303. [ 3 ] Some OPCA ideas are so notoriously false that simply employing these concepts creates a presumption that a litigant appears in court for an abusive, ulterior motive: Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 , 368 Nfld & PEIR 80; Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 .

Knutson’s litigation included three examples of these universally rejected concepts: 1. “Strawman Theory” ( Knutson #1 , at paras 48-53 ); 2. claims that birth certificates are more than just documentation of a birth, and instead are associated with secret government- operated bank accounts that contain vast sums ( Knutson #1 , at paras 54-55 ); 3. the “Three/Five Letters” debt elimination scheme ( Knutson #1 , at paras 56-59 ). The use of these schemes by Knutson puts the onus on him to demonstrate he is a good faith, fair-dealing litigant.

[ 4 ] Beyond these OPCAs, Knutson’s litigation history in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench demonstrates that he persistently employs abusive pseudolaw concepts. He has continued with his futile schemes, despite failing on every occasion where he has attempted to impose pseudolaw on the Courts and opposing parties.

He has misused court processes for no legitimate purpose. [ 5 ] In light of this history, this Court, on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction, investigated whether court access restrictions are appropriate for this abusive litigant to manage and minimize his future litigation misconduct in Alberta Courts, per the procedure followed in Re Boisjoli , 2015 ABQB 629 , 29 Alta LR (6th) 334, Re Gauthier , 2017 ABQB 555 , 87 CPC (7th) 348, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14 ; Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 652 , court access restrictions imposed 2018 ABQB 834 ; Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry , 2018 ABQB 856 , court access restrictions imposed 2018 ABQB 951 . [ 6 ] This Court’s usual procedure ( Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105 ; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust , 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62 , appeal deemed abandoned (3 March 2018), Edmonton 1703-0195AC (Alta CA)) is that Knutson’s presumptively abusive activities are evaluated on a document-only basis and without court appearances.

Knutson was given 15 days from filing of Knutson #1 to make submissions and tender affidavit evidence: 1. as to whether he should be subject to court access restrictions in Alberta Courts, and 2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take. His response was due on October 30, 2018. [ 7 ] On October 24, 2018 Knutson wrote to the Court, requesting a 30 day extension on the October 30, 2018 deadline. In his email Knutson indicated he requires that time because “... I work 12-14 hours a day, 6 days a week and I have a wife and 5 sons and daughters, and on Sunday I keep the Sabbath Holy ...”.

He required additional time to conduct research and to prepare “... a well thought out and respectful rebuttal ...”.

Mindful of this Court’s obligations to self-represented persons ( Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , [2017] 1 SCR 470), on October 26, 2018 I ordered that Knutson’s deadline was extended to December 3, 2018. [ 8 ] On December 3, 2018 Knutson wrote via email the following: Good Afternoon, I have a few questions for my rebuttal for the order made against JAMES KNUTSON by Justice Thomas: • What law are you [re]lying upon that you can forbid a man from filing a claim at Court of Queen's Bench? • Is the location of the Edmonton courthouse (1A Sir Winston Churchill Square) a publicly or privately owned building? • My names is james • I do not know legalese • I [am] not a member of your society • I [am] an idiot at your court • I [am] a competent man • I wish to see the contract you claim to have that you can [im]pose these conditions upon me • I [re]quire you show me the facts and evidence you are [re]lying upon • I do not believe I have entered into a contract with you • I believe a harm and a wrong is being done to me • I believe I [am] [en]titled to full disclosure • I believe this court system is [at]tempting to joinder me to the legal fiction without my consent • I believe this is a breach of public trust [ac]cording to your own acts and statutes FYI I read a book by the Honourable Ex-Defense Minister Paul Hellyer about the fraudulent money system, would you also call him OPCA?

I have never filed anything but to try and protect myself from the fraud that is going on, so I do not understand why you would file this order in the first place. I look forward to hearing your [re]sponse in a timely manner. Best regards,

: James : Knutson (c) (780) [redacted] [9] Knutson’s email does not respond to the examples of OPCA and other litigation misconduct identified in Knutson #1. Infact, his email confirms that Knutson remains embedded in a false and conspiratorial OPCA worldview. For example, thiscommunication incorporates elements of Strawman Theory: 1. he is “james”, and “: James : Knutson”, vs JAMES KNUTSON; 2. he distinguishes between himself and “the legal fiction”; and 3. he and “the legal fiction” are linked by “joinder”. [10] In short, Knutson has learned nothing from Knutson #1.

I now move to what court access restrictions are appropriate tomanage this abusive litigant. II. Appropriate Court Access Restrictions [11] Knutson #1, at paras 34-45 reviews the law concerning the jurisdiction, relevant evidence, and the analysis this Court applieswhen evaluating whether a litigant should be subject to court access restrictions. [12] An important step in that process is to evaluate whether the putative abusive litigant has exhibited features, or “indicia”, ofabusive litigation: Knutson #1, at paras 36-37.

In Knutson #1 I concluded Knutson’s litigation demonstrated a number of indicia,including: 1. multiple OPCA schemes, including three OPCA concepts that presumptively establish that Knutson litigates for an ulterior,abusive purpose (Knutson #1, at paras 46-80); 2. a collateral attack on a concluded court decision (Knutson #1, at para 82); 3. impossible or disproportionate remedies (Knutson #1, at para 83); 4. refusal to abide by court orders (Knutson #1, at para 84); and 5. baseless allegations of conspiracy, fraud and improper conduct by institutions and lawyers (Knutson #1, at para 85). [13] Knutson’s failure to rebut the presumption that he litigates for an ulterior, abusive process is a further and serious indicium ofabusive litigation. [14] Any indicium is a basis for the Court to impose court access restrictions.

The presence of multiple indicia generally favourscourt intervention: e.g. Chutskoff v Bonora, at paras 131-132; Re Boisjoli, at para 104; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), 2017ABQB 237 at para 158, 54 Alta LR (6th) 135, appeal abandoned, Edmonton 1603-0287AC (Alta CA). [15] Since court access restrictions are prospective, rather than punitive, the court evaluates whether intervention is warranted tocontrol future plausible abusive litigation.

Anticipated litigation abuse may be suggested by a person’s litigation history (issues, targetsand forums where abuse may be anticipated), however the critical issue is what the court can anticipate.

Therefore, statements of intent,motivation, political ideology, and behavioural pathology are also in some instances highly relevant: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta(Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-79, 283 ACWS (3d) 55. [16] My conclusions in Knutson #1 and above mean that court access restrictions are clearly warranted for this abusive litigant.The usual access limitation placed on such a litigant is a requirement that he or she must seek permission - “leave” - prior to initiating anew action or application, or continuing an existing lawsuit.

This is a very modest imposition on a problematic litigant: Hok v Alberta,2016 ABQB 651 at paras 32-33; Wong v Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 277 at para 8, 515 AR 58; Canada v Olumide, 2017 FCA 42 atparas 26-29, [2017] GSTC 17; Bossé v Immeubles Robo Ltée, at para 38 (NBCA). [17] Knutson’s use of abusive OPCA concepts has occurred in multiple disputes.

Further, Knutson’s OPCA litigation has an“offensive” component (see Knutson #1, at paras 8-11, 28, 31), and as I concluded in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee),2017 ABQB 548 at paras 68-74, this class of OPCA litigation warrants broad and immediate court responses, since OPCA litigants whoengage in anti-institutional and anti-government litigation: ... believe they have a right to attack others via the courts, they like the idea of doing that, and they view their litigation targets as badactors who deserve punishment.

Waiting for these individuals to establish “persistent misconduct” simply means they just have moreopportunities to cause harm. [18] Knutson has attempted to impose OPCA-based threats on opposing parties via “fee schedules” and claims that he holds“common law copyright” in his name: Knutson #1, at paras 60-65. These are nothing more than OPCA-based acts of intimidation. [19] I conclude that Knutson should be subject to a broad leave to initiate or continue litigation in all Alberta courts.

Knutson’srejection of state authority and Canadian law means his: ... next target can be anyone who crosses their path - government officials or organizations, peace officers, lawyers, judges, businessemployees - and who then offends the OPCA litigant’s skewed perspectives.

( 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , 2017 ABQB 548 at para 72 ). [ 20 ] An additional inquiry is whether Knutson should be subject to more stringent court access restrictions beyond the requirement that he obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in Alberta courts.

Any additional step must also be balanced against the predicted likelihood and the form of bad litigation conduct: Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2) , at para 35; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , at para 95 ; Ayangma v Canada Health Infoway , at para 62. [ 21 ] I conclude two additional court access restrictions are potentially warranted with Knutson. The first is that Knutson is required to submit any leave application via a lawyer.

This less common and more severe court access restriction is potentially warranted on a number of identified bases ( Knutson #1 , at para 44 ), but I will highlight instances where this additional step was imposed in response to OPCA-related misconduct. [ 22 ] This additional requirement has been applied in two circumstances: 1. where an OPCA litigant attempts to enforce fictitious OPCA claims on a target ( Re Boisjoli ; Re Gauthier ; Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 834 ); and 2. where an OPCA guru or OPCA advocate engages in the trade of pseudolaw ( Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry , 2018 ABQB 951 at para 55 ). [ 23 ] Knutson’s conduct potentially satisfies the first alternative, however I conclude that there is a separate and independent basis for me to impose this additional more stringent court access restriction.

Knutson relied in one of his lawsuits on a decision of a fictitious US OPCA vigilante court, the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT”, which purported to displace this Court’s authority and grant Knutson a free house: Knutson #1 , at paras 16-26, 72-80 . In Knutson #1 , at para 80 I concluded this recourse to a vigilante OPCA court is a very serious form of litigation misconduct.

It is prima facie contempt of court: Fearn v Canada Customs , at paras 201-210. [ 24 ] I conclude that enhanced and more stringent court access restrictions are generally warranted when an OPCA litigant deployed court orders, decisions, summons, or other spurious filings from vigilante OPCA tribunals, courts, adjudicators, peace officers, or other analogous entities. As I explored in Knutson #1 , at paras 72-80 , recourse to these fictional entities represents a significant and dangerous escalation in the extremist political beliefs and ideology commonly encountered in OPCA communities.

Attempts to deny or extinguish Court authority in this manner will not be tolerated. [ 25 ] Knutson’s filing and reliance on a purported decision of the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” warrants that Knutson may only apply for leave where that application is submitted by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Knutson in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8. [ 26 ] I conclude this type of restriction should also apply to the Criminal Code , ss 504, 507.1 private information process: Lee v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 ABQB 464 at paras 160-164 ; Hill v Bundon , 2018 ABQB 506 at para 125 , Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at para 204 ; McKechnie (Re) , 2018 ABQB 677 at para 37 ; Lymer (Re) , 2018 ABQB 859 at para 135 ; Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 835 at paras 17-18 ; Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry , at para 56.

This additional step is appropriate on two bases: 1. Knutson has already threatened to file Criminal Code private informations against those he identifies, without legal basis, as wrongdoers ( Knutson #1 , at para 28 ); and 2. Knutson is using language characteristic of members of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, an OPCA movement whose preferred tactics include filing legally false criminal informations to harass and harm opponents ( Portin (Re) , at paras 17-18). [ 27 ] Therefore, on my own motion and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, I order and declare that: 1.

James Kenneth Knutson is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding: (

i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and (ii) on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted. 2. James Kenneth Knutson must describe himself, in the application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “James Kenneth Knutson”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. 3.

Any application for leave by James Kenneth Knutson will only be accepted if James Kenneth Knutson is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent James Kenneth Knutson in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8. 4. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal James Kenneth Knutson must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and (

i) The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceeding is justified. (ii) The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages.

(iii) The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding. (iv) If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it. (

v) The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing, or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. (vi) If the single appeal judge grants James Kenneth Knutson leave to commence an appeal, James Kenneth Knutson may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting James Kenneth Knutson’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that James Kenneth Knutson proposes to file;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed appeal, application, or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that it is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; and

d) indicating whether James Kenneth Knutson has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars. 5. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, James Kenneth Knutson shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate: (

i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person. (ii) Any application shall be made in writing. (iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, restricting James Kenneth Knutson’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that James Kenneth Knutson proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether James Kenneth Knutson has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. (iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to: (1) the involved potential parties; (2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and (3) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. 6. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards. 7. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. 8. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court. 9. James Kenneth Knutson is prohibited from: (

i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any court, except on his own behalf; and

(ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie , [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representative in court proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal. 10.

No information shall be received by a justice from James Kenneth Knutson per Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46, s 504 unless James Kenneth Knutson is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent James Kenneth Knutson in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8. 11. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from James Kenneth Knutson, unless: (

i) James Kenneth Knutson is a named party in the action in question, and (ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, James Kenneth Knutson has been granted leave to take that step by the Court. 12. All fee waivers granted to James Kenneth Knutson by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked. 13.

The Interim Court Filing Restrictions for James Kenneth Knutson Order filed in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 1803 20494, dated October 16, 2018, is vacated immediately. 14. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts. [ 28 ] The Court will prepare and file the appropriate Order to reflect this decision.

Knutson’s approval of this order is dispensed with per Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 20 th day of December, 2018. D.R.G. Thomas J.C.Q.B.A. Participant: James Kenneth Knutson Self-Represented Litigant