James Kenneth Proposed Applicant - v. -, 2023 ABKB 589

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Knutson (Re ), 2023 ABKB 589 Date: 20231018 Docket: 2303 18879 Registry: Edmonton Between: James Kenneth Proposed Applicant - and - Knutson, James Kenneth Proposed Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 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 Court of King’s Bench of Alberta if Mr. Knutson first obtains permission - “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 September 22, 2023, Chief Justice Moreau of this Court received a 16-page package from Mr. Knutson. The cover letter is reproduced below as Appendix “A”.

Included in that package is an unfiled Form 39 of the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Regulation , Alta Reg 219/2009 ( AGAT Regulation ) Application, in which the candidate adult who requires a trustee is “Knutson, James Kenneth”, and the Application is by “James Kenneth”. Similarly, an unsworn and undated Form 15 of the AGAT Regulation Affidavit is deposed by “James Kenneth”, in relation to the need for a Court-appointed trustee for “Knutson, James Kenneth”. [ 4 ] Chief Justice Moreau forwarded this September 22, 2023 package to myself.

I am the Administrative Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta who responds to requests for leave to file or continue litigation by persons subject to Court access restrictions, such as Mr. Knutson. [ 5 ] After review of Mr. Knutson’s materials, I conclude that what Mr. Knutson seeks is that the Court appoint a trustee over a non-existent “Estate” that is more commonly identified in OPCA commentary as “The Strawman”. Any reference or reliance on Strawman Theory creates a reverse onus to establish litigation has a valid basis. For that reason, I conclude Mr.

Knutson’s leave to file request is an OPCA abuse of the Court and its processes. I, therefore, reject Mr. Knutson’s leave to file request. II. Test for Leave to Initiate Litigation [ 6 ] “... [A] person subject to court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019). [ 7 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of Court activities on the same standard.

A person subject to court access restrictions must: 1) establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and 2) depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 .) [ 8 ] This threshold, that must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one, and, in many ways, parallels the test for

Summary Judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26. The person subject to Court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an Action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 9 ] In addition, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 345 stressed a broad and contextual evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed litigation.

To determine whether a leave request is reasonable, a Court may take into account the purposes of the specific court access restrictions (para 34), economic aspects of the proposed litigation (paras 40, 49), failure to pay costs (para 47-48), and the potential the justice system will be misused (para 46). [ 10 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, Application, Appeal, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed initiating filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 11 ] Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 ; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 12 ] Leave submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1) where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 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); Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta v Drover , 2021 ABQB 511 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ); 2) if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place 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 ; Knutson (Re) , 2021 ABQB 367 ; McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 550 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 79 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 97 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Fiset v Feeney , 2022 ABQB 211 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 354 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 498 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ; Hayden v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2023 ABKB

100 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 295 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2023 ABKB 384 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ; Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2023 ABKB 390 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ); 3) where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); 4) where the abusive litigant provides false information or fails to provide necessary information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ); 5) where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as a transcript of a proceeding proposed for appeal ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ); 6) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ); and 7) where the individual subject to court access restrictions does not have standing to make the leave request ( Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ). [ 13 ] There is no appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta of a decision to deny leave to initiate or continue litigation: r 14.5(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 ; Re Gauthier , 2018 ABCA 14 at para 8 .

A litigant who is denied leave to initiate or continue litigation by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. III. Analysis [ 14 ] Mr. Knutson’s proposed Application for a public guardian is an obvious instance of “Strawman Theory”.

I recently reviewed and summarized Strawman Theory in Burles v Lakhani , 2023 ABKB 409 at paras 11-12 , see also Meads v Meads at paras 417-446 ; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88 ; Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 83-92 ; Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments and Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1068-1078: ... Strawman Theory ... is based on the false concept that individuals have two parts: 1) A “flesh and blood” physical human component that is identified by mixed case letter names, such as “Grant N.

Burles”, or unorthodox naming structures, for example “Grant Nelson of the family of Burles”. The physical aspect of the Strawman duality is purportedly not inherently subject to government or Court authority, but only some other kind of reduced law. 2) A non-corporeal doppelganger component that is identified by all capital letters names, such as GRANT NELSON BURLES. This component of the duality has many names, for example: the Strawman, a “person”, or an “estate”.

The non-corporeal Strawman half is created by birth documentation, which is a concealed contract, and then the Strawman is bound to the physical person by that contract. According to Strawman Theory, legislation, government authority, police authority, and (sometimes) court jurisdiction only exist because these entities chain their authority to the Strawman, and then onward through to the flesh and blood physical human. In short, Strawman Theory promises that eliminating the Strawman, claiming authority over the Strawman, or breaking the Strawman to human “contract” creates extraordinary immunities and authority.

Strawman Theory describes the birth contract scheme as a kind of dirty trick, where unwitting parents enslave their newborns by completing apparently innocent birth documentation. [ 15 ] Strawman Theory is so notoriously false that anyone who employs Strawman Theory is presumed to do so in bad faith, and for abusive, ulterior purposes: Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40 ; Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21 ; Unrau #2 at para 180 . That presumption applies here to Mr. Knutson. [ 16 ] The cover letter and proposed Application from Mr.

Knutson references two different but obviously related entities, (1) “James Kenneth of the Knutson” or “James Kenneth”, versus (2) the “James Kenneth Living Estate Trust” or “Knutson, James Kenneth”. The former is Knutson, flesh and blood, the latter is his Strawman. Mr. Knutson also refers to the Strawman “Estate” as his “taxpayer”. [ 17 ] Mr. Knutson in his letter demands “... for a public trustee to be appointed over my taxpayer so that I may be a private man.” In the proposed Application, Mr.

Knutson seeks as a remedy: Appoint a trustee over Knutson, James Kenneth Estate for re-coupment of all securities, accounts to be established for beneficiary, Bills in Equity as needed, merge titles and extinguish all debt, take care of all the beneficiaries needs, tracing and marshalling of accounts, all other circumstances where a trustee is needed, as necessary... ... I have corrected the master file with the CRA and the IRS to show, I am the beneficiary of the [redacted Saskatchewan birth certificate number] Foundational security and the taxpayer [redacted Social Insurance Number] security.

I have given notice to registrar for Saskatchewan and Minister of Finance Canada, among many other government agencies. I need to be a private man. In short, Mr. Knutson seeks to have “James Kenneth Living Estate”/“Knutson, James Kenneth” disconnected from himself, and reassigned to the Public Trustee, so that Mr. Knutson is no longer subject to Strawman tyranny, and instead is a “private person”. [ 18 ] I conclude that Mr. Knutson is attempting to have the Court conduct a process between himself, James Kenneth, and himself,

Knutson, James Kenneth. Besides this proposed Application being a clear application of presumptively abusive Strawman Theory, the proposed litigation simply has no purpose. As Associate Chief Justice Rooke observed in Knutson (Re) , 2021 ABQB 367 at para 12 ( Knutson (Re) #3 ): 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. IV. Conclusion [ 19 ] Mr. Knutson’s proposed Application is refused filing as an abusive pseudolaw proceeding. This result is final: Knutson (Re) #2 at para 27 (7). Pursuant to my obligations to provide information to self-represented persons ( Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 ) concerning their litigation options, if Mr. Knutson disagrees with this Memorandum of Decision, then his remedy is to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 20 ] This is now the second time that Mr.

Knutson has been denied leave by this Court for advancing presumptively abusive Strawman Theory leave to file requests: Knutson (Re) #3 . I caution Mr. Knutson that if he abuses this Court’s leave processes, he may be subject to additional litigation and litigant management steps, including penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 21 ] Mr. Knutson will be served this Memorandum of Decision by email to the address used by Mr. Knutson on his September 22, 2023 cover letter: jamesknutsonestate@protonmail.com . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 18 th day of October, 2023. K.G.

Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearance by submissions: James Kenneth Knutson Self-represented Litigant Appendix “A” - September 19, 2023 “- Knutson, James Kenneth Estate leave to file application for a public trustee -” - notice by way of special trust deposit; Equity Jurisdiction is invoked - James Knutson Living Estate Trust. Office of the General Executor. James Kenneth of the Knutson’s, General-Executor. P.O. Box 99900 FG 425 164, Station Main, Sherwood Park, Alberta. [T8H OX1]

Non-domestic and Non-commercial. [Wednesday, September 19, 2023] ================================== Chief Justice of the Court Of King's - Strictly Private and Confidential Bench of Alberta Current Occupant, Mary Moreau sent by courier Edmonton Law Courts Building ================================== 6 th Floor IA Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton, Alberta.

T5J 0R2 Tel: [redacted] Fax: [redacted] Email: [redacted] - Knutson, James Kenneth Estate leave to file application for a public trustee - Greetings Mary Moreau, the current occupant of the Office of the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, and all Agents, Successors, and Assigns, hereinafter the Respondent (“You, Your, Respondent, Securities Intermediary, Fiduciary, Trustee, Chancellor”). I am coming to you with clean hands and in good faith.

I am making a formal request for leave to file the application and affidavit for a public trustee to be appointed over my taxpayer so that I may be a private man. Please find enclosed two copies of my application, affidavit and my autograph on a blank piece of paper for consideration as I, alone, am the underwriter for Knutson, James Kenneth, to pay for the filing fee please convert it into whatever is necessary for acceptable payment. If you do not wish to accept payment like that, please have someone call me and I can give him or her a credit card number, if you allow me to file that is honorable Chancellor.

I do hereby declare all herein to be the truth as I see it, as the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bear witness, my word is my bond. It is my intention to be a private man as God has intended. Thank you for your time and attention to these most important Private Trust matters. With Love, [printed text: “James Kenneth”] By: James Kenneth of the Knutson’s, Beneficiary U/D/T January 9, 2020 - without recourse. Office of the General-Executor, For the Knutson, James Kenneth Estate as Beneficiary and for the James Knutson Living Estate Trust as General-Executor & Trustee. ...