Knutson (Re), 2021 ABQB 367

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Knutson (Re), 2021 ABQB 367 Date: 20210510 Docket: 1803 20494 Registry: Edmonton Between: James Kenneth Knutson Applicant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On December 20, 2018, Justice Thomas, in a decision reported as Knutson (Re) , 2018 ABQB 1050 [ Knutson (Re) #2 ], found that James Kenneth Knutson [Mr.

Knutson] had engaged in a lengthy record of abusive litigation in multiple actions: see Knutson (Re) , 2018 ABQB 858 at paras 46-85 [ Knutson (Re) #1 ]. That litigation misconduct warranted Mr. Knutson being made subject to prospective court access gatekeeping by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”. In the result, Mr. Knutson may only initiate or continue litigation in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench if Mr. Knutson first obtains permission, or “leave”, of the Court. That Order remains in effect to this day. [ 2 ] Justice Thomas, in Knutson (Re) #2 , concluded that Mr.

Knutson had repeatedly and persistently employed Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [OPCAs]: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 . OPCA ideas sound like law and use legal terminology and references, but are universally rejected by Canadian courts as false pseudolaw. OPCA schemes are typically applied to evade income tax, as a “get out of jail free card”, to attack government and institutional actors, or as a way to purportedly nullify debts and get free money: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 178 [ Unrau #2 ].

Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau #2 at paras 180, 670-671 . [ 3 ] On April 30, 2021, I received a document titled “- notice -” from “James Kenneth Living Estate Trust. Office of the General Executor. James Kenneth”. The body of the document reads as follows: - Foreign Judgment Special Trust Deposit and Return of Proceeds of Disposition -

Greetings John D. Rooke, the current occupant of the Office of the Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, andall Agents, Successors, and Assigns, hereinafter the Respondent ("You, Your, Respondent, Securities Intermediary, Fiduciary, Trustee").I realize I made a mistake on my previous correspondence, which has been rectified. Equity will not let a trust fail for want of a trusteeand I know you are trustee therefore I know that all the acts, statutes, bylaws and codes apply to you and not to me, for I am thebeneficiary.

This correspondence is a notice to ensure you are aware of a status correction in the master index file. The Master hasreturned! I am no longer seen as a minor, now coming as a private man with a perfected security interest, the beneficiary, an entitlementholder and protected purchaser. I never abandoned my securities and require a return of all proceeds of disposition to make the estatewhole. I am coming to you with clean hands and in good faith and am grateful that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on theirrights.

There has been an error that requires your assistance, the current record is wrong and needs to be updated, as I have the soleauthority to administer my estate. A correction to the master file has been done, I require the error of labeling the James KennethKnutson estate as a vexatious litigant be corrected, court case 1803 20494 dismissed with prejudice and to be removed from and ascrubbing to be done to this court case from the internet so it is no longer searchable as I am the beneficiary and not a trustee, and I neverwas.

Now please have the clerk do a full accounting of this case and scratch a cheque payable to the James Kenneth Knutson estatebefore the end of the business day on Thursday May 13th, 2021 sent by registered mail to the address above. God sure does work in mysterious ways. I am also grateful for the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ andthat equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner. Thank you for your time and attention io these most important Trust matters.

Kindest regards, [James Kenneth signature] James Kenneth, beneficiary, general executor, entitlement holder and settlor U/D/T January 9, 2020 - without recourse. Office of the General Executor, for the James Kenneth Knutson Estate and for the James Knutson Living Estate Trust. [4] I am mindful of my obligations, set in Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23, to self-represented litigants, such as Mr. Knutson. Inthe above submission, Mr. Knutson has referenced the Knutson (Re) #2 court access restriction Order, and Mr. Knutson appears to nowseek, among other things, a variation and/or vacating of that Order.

I therefore am responding to Mr. Knutson’s letter as an applicationfor leave to file an application to vary the Knutson (Re) #2 court access restriction Order, pursuant to Knutson (Re) #2, para 27,subparagraph 5. [5] I reject Mr. Knutson’s leave to file application on multiple basis. First, he has not satisfied the criteria for a proper leave tofile application as set in Knutson (Re) #2, para 27, subparagraph 5. If Mr. Knutson wants the Court to respond, then he must provide anAffidavit that includes items such as the factual basis to his proposed filing, and the proposed filing.

This is a first basis to reject Mr.Knutson’s application: Re Gauthier, 2018 ABQB 99; Re Botar, 2018 ABQB 193; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2018ABQB 220, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 355, leave to appeal to SCC refused,38266 (31 January 2019. [6] Second, a leave to file an application may be rejected where the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation: ET vCalgary Catholic School District No 1, 2017 ABCA 349, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta TreasuryBranches v Hok, 2018 ABQB 316; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2018 ABQB 220; Re Botar, 2018 ABQB 193; TrinityPlace Foundation of Alberta v Templanza, 2019 ABQB 45; Onischuk (Re), 2019 ABQB 229; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP,2019 ABQB 396; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2021 ABQB 208.

Mr. Knutson’s April 30, 2021 notice is obviously apseudolaw document, as per Meads v Meads, and an attempt to abuse this Court’s processes. [7] Mr. Knutson claims to unilaterally impose trustee and fiduciary status upon me. That is a well-known and long discountedOPCA scheme: Meads v Mead, paras 448-449, 492-493. Mr. Knutson also says the “acts, statutes, bylaws and codes” do not apply tohim, “The Master has returned!”.

Unilateral pseudolaw claims to be outside the law are not only a basis to conclude that a litigant hasabused court processes, but does so with an ulterior, bad-faith intent: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40. I conclude that Mr.Knutson’s April 30, 2021 document is a bad-faith attempt to interfere with Court processes, and escape valid litigant management steps. [8] In addition, the multiple aspects of Mr.

Knutson: • James Knutson Living Estate Trust • James Kenneth, Office of the General Executor • James Kenneth Knutson Estate • James Kenneth, beneficiary, general executor, entitlement holder and settlor demonstrates that Mr. Knutson is using “Strawman Theory” concepts (see Meads v Meads at paras 417-446, Pomerleau v Canada(Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88, and Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 83-92) that are universally rejected byCanadian Courts.

Strawman Theory purports the individuals are divided into two parts: a “flesh and blood” aspect, here, “JamesKenneth, beneficiary, general executor, entitlement holder and settlor”, and a non-corporeal aspect, in this case the “James Kenneth

Knutson Estate”. [ 9 ] Mr. Knutson is very well aware of Strawman Theory and how it has no basis in law. In Knutson (Re) #1 at paras 48-55 , Thomas J provided a detailed rebuttal to Strawman Theory. Then, in Knutson (Re) #2 at paras 8-9 , Mr. Knutson again made Strawman Theory claims that were rejected by the Court. Now Mr. Knutson does it again. That is a third basis on which I conclude that Mr. Knutson’s leave to file application should be rejected as abusive litigation.

His correspondence and claims are nothing but a further attempt to unilaterally impose illusionary pseudolaw on the Court. [ 10 ] Finally, I reject any variation of, or the Court vacating, the Knutson (Re) #2 court access gatekeeping order because that Order is obviously still necessary to manage Mr. Knutson’s persistent and futile attempts to abuse the Court using pseudolaw schemes. [ 11 ] I note to Mr. Knutson that this outcome is final.

Knutson (Re) #2 para 27 , subparagraph 7 states that a leave to file application “... that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.” There is no appeal of this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal: Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 14.5(4) . [ 12 ] Mr. Knutson is welcome to make all the agreements and declarations that he wishes among his imaginary estates and trusts, however, as Master Schlosser observed in Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee , 2015 ABQB 700 at para 76 , “... Talking to yourself binds no-one. ...”.

Any such claims to involve the Court in these fictional arrangements will not be accepted. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 10 th day of May, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: James Kenneth Knutson Self-Represented Litigant