Burles v Lakhani, 2023 ABKB 518

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Burles v Lakhani, 2023 ABKB 518 Date: 20230912 Docket: 2301 05882 Registry: Calgary Between: Lord Grace, Grant Nelson Burles, Apostle Prophet, Cup-bearer – office of the CHAPEL GRANT MISSION EMBASSY Applicant - and - Crown-Holder of the Great Seal, Her Honour, The Honourable, Salma Lakhani AOC B.Sc., LLD(HON.) office of the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On May 5, 2023, a person who at the time self-identified as “Lord Grace, Grant Nelson Burles, Apostle Prophet, Cup-bearer – office of the CHAPEL GRANT MISSION EMBASSY” filed with the Calgary Court of King’s Bench of Alberta an Originating Application (Application) and a 43-page Affidavit sworn on May 5, 2023. These documents appear to name the Lt. Governor of Alberta, Salma Lakhani (“Crown-Holder of the Great Seal, Her Honour, The Honourable, Salma Lakhani AOC B.Sc, LLD(HON.) office of the

Lieutenant Governor of Alberta”) as the Respondent. In this Memorandum of Decision I will refer to the Applicant as “Mr. Burles”, although, as will become apparent, Mr. Burles uses various ways to describe and identify himself. [ 2 ] Mr. Burles’ Application cannot be adequately summarized, and so I reproduce the body of that document: BASIC CLAIM: 1. Reclaim my noble status, from the diminished status of the commoner class. In order, to hold my surname office of divine service, as, Apostle, Prophet, or Cup-bearer of the monastic Chapel Grant Mission, at 416 Gleichen St.

Gleichen, Alberta, legal description; plan Gleichen 7 -10 - 9 - 752N, an embassy for the redemption of mans soul for their domicile of the city of New Jerusalem of a ancient Israelite temple site on Alberta/ Montana border that marks a land claim of the Milk River watershed. The ancient Israelite temple site land claim will be filed this summer 2023 in a separate application . 2. This status change will redeem my noble title right to Grant N. Burles trust estate lands, tenements, and hereditament for the servient tenement of Chapel Grant Mission charitable use or needs. 3.

Status change allows for exemption and immunity from, Wheatland County property tax and utilities services, and utility services of Epcor, Telus, as well as bank services, and exemption from the status of an artificial person or common class of society. REMEDY SOUGHT 1. Change or remove my reduced surname status of the dead legal artificial person, as I did not die intestate.

The Registry rolls, Vital Statistics, Land Titles, and Wheatland County tax roll, must change my status to a freeman or nobility, so to redeem my birthright for the surname of Christ for the Cestuy que personal or customary usage in service at Chapel Grant Mission. 2. Redeem lost funds, from taxation and estate assets used as collateral in service contracts over the course of my life with government agency's for the benefit of the Chapel Grant Mission. ... APPLICABLE ACTS AND REGULATIONS 1. ACTS: Pre-ordination; evidence of divine appointment with the registration of a live birth, 2.

Attestation; baptism certificate, 3. Ratification; Confirmation of consecration to appointed ordination in Christ name certificate, 4. Consecration of the Chapel Grant Mission certificate. 5. REGULATIONS: Bible; rules or orders prescribed by God and or King Jesus the anointed one. Customary or established modes and arrangements of Yahova/ Christ divine law as prescribed in the Bible, such as, my apostolic mandate for souls of The City of New Jerusalem of N. America. (Sic, emphasis in original.) [ 3 ] Mr.

Burles’ supporting affidavit is equally unorthodox and esoteric: Burles v Lakhani , 2023 ABKB 409 at paras 3-4 ( Burles #1 ). [ 4 ] After a June 5, 2023 appearance before Eamon J in Justice Chambers at which Mr. Burle’s Application was adjourned sine die , Mr. Burles’ Application was referred to me as a potentially abusive proceeding. I am the Administrative Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta who responds to abusive litigation with litigation and litigant management steps. [ 5 ] After review of Mr.

Burles’ Application, I issued a Memorandum of Decision, Burles #1 , that at para 23 stayed the Application indefinitely, and also directed that: Mr. Burles has until August 18, 2023 to submit to my Office in document form only Written Argument and/or Affidavit evidence to rebut the [ Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 ] presumption, and establish that the Application is valid litigation recognized by and compliant with the laws of Alberta and Canada. [ 6 ] What led to this step was that Mr.

Burles’ Application appeared to employ Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ), a category of interwoven not-law schemes and conspiracy beliefs that are universally rejected by Courts world-wide.

Pseudolaw is 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 “money for nothing”: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 178 ( Unrau #2 ); Donald J Netolitzky, “The Dead Sleep Quiet: History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada –

Part II” (2023) 60:3 Alta L Rev 795 at 811-813. No court in any jurisdiction has accepted the stereotypic conspiratorial not-law concepts that make up pseudolaw. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of Court processes, and warrants immediate Court response: Unrau #2 at paras 180, 670-671 . [ 7 ] Mr. Burles deployed two inter-related pseudolaw concepts: “Strawman Theory” and “Accept for Value”, the latter often referred to as “A4V”. Both these concepts are identified, examined, and rejected in Meads v Meads , paras 417-446, and 531-543 , respectfully.

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 Payett e, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21 ; Unrau #2 at para 180 . Burles #1 at paras 11-22 reviewed Mr. Burles’ filings and concluded that Mr. Burles was using Strawman Theory. On that basis, Mr. Burles was instructed to explain why the Application is valid litigation.

II. Mr. Burles’ Response [ 8 ] On August 15, 2023, my Office received a 78-page Affidavit sworn on August 14, 2023 by “Private entity entitled Grant Nelson Burles Surname christ” that includes a “Cover Letter For Affidavit And Exhibits Regarding New Information”. First, Mr. Burles indicates his Application was not vexatious or abusive; however, Mr. Burles does explain that he had learned that Burles #1 was correct, in that: ...

I have found evidence that you are right that this venue is not appropriate for seeking a remedy for the condition of my private rights and I can see how you think I am vexatious or abusing the courts. There is a chain of event that led to this plain error which I sincerely did not intend for. ... (Sic.) [ 9 ] Mr. Burles continues to explain that he had misapprehended which Court he should attend to exercise his right in equity (“exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer”), versus his rights under the common law (“common law is held before a baron”). Mr.

Burles then indicates he has identified the Court in which he should have filed his Application, and gives the address for the Federal Court of Canada Registry in downtown Calgary. Mr. Burles concludes the “Cover Letter” by stating: ... Again it is not my intent to inconvenience courts of litigation, it is not proper to litigate private rights or customs to redeem my divine favors, but is proper to place an order in equity. I realize how this could be construed as vexatious or an abuse of process, but it is out of innocent ignorance.

I would never come into a court to just mess with the process or the agents, I have no time for that as I am on a mission from God. It is not my fault that I was improperly educated by the public school system that only teaches the vulgar version of the English language as opposed to the proper version. [ 10 ] Although Mr. Burles did not submit a discontinuance, Mr. Burles has apparently agreed his lawsuit before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta should terminate. This is a first basis on which I Order that the Application is struck out, immediately.

This Court has a practice of acknowledging and encouraging good faith, positive litigation steps ( Unrau #2 at paras 742-746 ), and on that basis I conclude that no costs will be awarded against Mr. Burles. [ 11 ] Second, while Mr. Burles in his “Cover Letter” acknowledges his Application has no merit, Mr. Burles does reject the analysis in Burles #1 concerning Strawman Theory and the Fiander v Mills presumption that litigation that relies on Strawman Theory is an abuse of the Court. Instead, Mr.

Burles rejects that his claims have a pseudolaw basis, and is particularly critical of pseudolaw legal expert Donald J. Netolitzky, who was cited in Burles #1 . Mr. Burles rejects Netolitzky’s distillation of pseudolaw, concluding: ... Acquiescence is quiet assent or silent submission. So this man, D.J. Netolitzky should stick to microbiology. This claim that silence is not an agreement is a pseudo argument that is unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo. ...

I don't think relying on a microbiologist who is not a member of the court has any weight or authority unless this is not a court but an administrative body. [ 12 ] Beyond that, despite Mr. Burles’ claim that he is not employing Strawman Theory concepts, it is plain from Mr. Burles’ August 15, 2023 documents that is precisely what Mr. Burles is arguing. For example, in his August 15, 2023 materials, Mr. Burles confirms the core narrative behind Strawman Theory: Regarding the straw man or artificial person, the straw man is a legal term that is the same as an artificial person.

The artificial person is a fictitious person created by the government issued birth certificate and my estate as a pledge of real property in loyalty to the Crown like the vital statistic agent revealed to me over the phone. The birth certificate ... creates a dead legal corporate fiction who died intestate, or straw man whose estate is taken by trick and devise using 'operation of law' or 'constructive trust,' 'equitable conversion,' 'cy pres,' or 'rules against perpetuities,' etc. ...

The operation of law I operate in is divine law of the living man, not statute laws of the dead artificial person the Crown created with my sacred names or vows for subjection to another man or corporation. [ 13 ] In brief, Mr. Burles has not rebutted that he has adopted and employed Strawman Theory as the conceptual basis for his Application and has, instead, argued the Court and Canadian case law is incorrect, and each person is linked to an incorporeal legal entity created by birth documentation.

That is the core claim underlying Strawman Theory, and is false. [ 14 ] This is a second independent basis on which I conclude that Mr. Burles’ Application should be struck out. The Application is abusive OPCA litigation that has no legal merit or basis, and that should be terminated immediately. III. Conclusion [ 15 ] Mr. Burles’ Application is struck out. No costs follow. [ 16 ] The Court will prepare the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Mr. Burles’ approval of the form and content of that Order is dispensed with pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . Mr.

Burles will be served this Memorandum of Decision and its corresponding Order to Mr. Burles’ email address used to submit his August 15, 2023 materials: gburles@hotmail.com. Copies of this Memorandum of Decision and the corresponding Order will also be sent to the Attorney General of Alberta, the County of Wheatland, and EPCOR. [ 17 ] While I do not believe it is appropriate that I comment on the scope of the Federal Court of Canada’s jurisdiction, I recommend that Mr. Burles consult with a lawyer prior to initiating his planned proceedings in that Court. I believe Mr.

Burles would benefit from that step. [ 18 ] Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to self-represented litigants, such as Mr. Burles, if Mr. Burles disagrees with the result of this Memorandum of Decision, he should initiate an appeal with the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12 th day of September, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Grant Nelson Burles Self-represented Litigant