http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 95#p269995
James is one of the multitudes of OPCA litigants finding that Alberta's Queen's Bench is no longer willing to put up with their pointless, nonsensical litigation and is declaring them vexatious litigants in wholesale batches. I can see the court's point. It seems like Alberta is being overrun by OPCA nutcases with nothing better to do that try and squander court resources on endless litigation using made-up, fake law that has been discredited years ago. Knutson, like Alfred Potvin, fits right into this category;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11817
The opening paragraphs of the decision tell us exactly where this is going;
That's right, the old 'inherent jurisdiction' play that Queen's Bench loves to dust off at every opportunity. If nobody else will step up to bat to petition the court to request that Knutson be declared a vexatious litigant the court will do it itself.I. Introduction
[1] James Kenneth Knutson [Knutson] has since 2016 employed a broad spectrum of abusive pseudolegal strategies in his attempts to evade enforcement of his credit card and mortgage debts. His litigation arguments are “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” or “OPCA”, a class of spurious “pseudolaw” concepts which are sold to abusive litigants by conman “gurus” who promise extraordinary but false benefits: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215. Gurus’ 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 are universally 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 court access restrictions through what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”: Meads v Meads; R v Fearn, 2014 ABQB 233 (CanLII) at para 49, 586 AR 182; Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 (CanLII) at para 92, 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 (CanLII), 588 AR 303. 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 (CanLII), 368 Nfld & PEIR 80; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 (CanLII).
[3] Knutson’s litigation history in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench amply demonstrates that he persistently employs these false concepts. He has continued with his abusive, futile schemes, despite failing on every occasion where he has attempted to impose pseudolaw on the Courts and opposing parties.
[4] In light of this history, this Court, on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction, will now investigate 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 (CanLII), 29 Alta LR (6th) 334, Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 (CanLII), 87 CPC (7th) 348, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14 (CanLII); Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 (CanLII), court access restrictions imposed 2018 ABQB 834 (CanLII).
Queen's Bench went through an analysis of Knutson's litigation history. First a Bank of Nova Scotia lawsuit that Knutson tried to stop. Queen's Bench gave a Shout-Out to you Brits for your country's invaluable contribution to the OPCA madness infecting our courts.
But, to be fair to Canada, you stole that those from us in the first place. Chief Rock Sino General was merrily churning out reams of Conditional Acceptances under the auspice of his self-appointed position as a fake notary well before GOODF was established..[10] On July 13, 2018, the Bank filed an Affidavit of Vanita Patel documenting the credit card arrangements, debts, and a number of unusual communications received by the Bank in relation to these debts, which are identified by the deponent as an OPCA sham debt elimination arrangement. These include:
2. A document dated September 16, 2016 where Knutson demands Brian J. Porter, president of the Bank, do various things including validate the debt, provide a signed contract, and if these demands are not satisfied in seven days that means the debt never existed or has been paid, and that damages and fee schedule charges are due. This document is an exact duplicate of a “Conditional Acceptance” document sold by the UK “Get Out Of Debt Free” OPCA website (see Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771 (CanLII), 603 AR 261, paras 55-73, Appendix “A”), which is the first document in a Three/Five Letters pseudolaw process which is intended to eliminate debts by foisting obligations on lenders. This document is marked by ink fingerprints in the lower right corner of each page, with the annotation “Seal” and “Copy-claim”.
Also attached is a second document from the Get Out Of Debt Free website, titled “Common Law Copyright Notice” (reproduced in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, Appendix “E”), which purports to claim intellectual property interests over Knutson’s name, biometric data, DNA, urine, feces, and other bodily fluids. Any breach of this claimed interest results in a $1 million penalty. This document also sports the ink fingerprint markings, and on its front page a Canadian postage stamp, signed across “by: James-Kenneth: Knutson”.
James had demanded that he be tried in a common law court. So again the UK has to fill the void left by the failure of Canadian Freemen to achieve the goal of having their own courts;
Then back to the old tried and true classics and a reference to Potvin;5. Last is a letter dated January 1, 2017, reproduced as Appendix “C”, where “Sovereign ©James of the family: Knutson, Authorized Agent and Representative for JAMES KNUTSON™” declares that he is “an endless creditor” thanks to “the birth certificate bond”, “money no longer exists”, and that he has been denied a “Common Law court de jure”. This trial can only proceed if he receives $10 million in gold or silver “paid up front”, he is recognized as an “Ambassador of God”, and “You must verity the [BAR CULT] fiction-code: NO LAW OR FACT SHALL BE TRIED IN COURT.”
But, astonishingly, this legal brilliance failed to sway the court;This document attaches a 20 page “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” [NOUICR], which is a document commonly used by persons in the Freeman-on-the-Land movement which purportedly eliminates state authority and fetters the operation of the Court. The document states:
... Free-men-on-the-land do not have earthly masters. I am a Free-man-on-the-land and I do not have a master on planet Earth other than GOD and only from GOD ...
This document also includes a “FEE SCHEDULE”, which allegedly sets fines to government actors, for example:
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5000.00) PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am held, handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarized consent ...
This particular NOUICR is largely identical to a NOUICR filed by Alfred Potvin in Royal Bank of Canada v Potvin, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1701 01667 and Potvin v Royal Bank of Canada, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1701 13997: Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 (CanLII).
Then on to the big one, Knutson's mortgage which he'd stopped paying;[13] Master Birkett dismissed Knutson’s application, concluding he did not act in a timely manner and had no valid defence to the credit card debt. She ordered payment of $500.00 in costs.
In default? Just fraudulent bullshit according to James;[14] On October 25, 2016 MCAP Service Corporation [MCAP], a mortgage lender, filed a Statement of Claim in response to Knutson’s default on a mortgage for a residential property located in Beaumont, Alberta. A $507.688.15 outstanding debt was owed as of October 18, 2016. MCAP sought judgment for the outstanding claimed debt, foreclosure, and solicitor and own client costs. A supporting appraisal affidavit indicated the outstanding debt was basically the value of the Beaumont residence.
[15] Master Wacowich ordered a Court-ordered sale on January 10, 2017. Knutson did not appear at that hearing. The Master subsequently on January 24, 2017 ordered any occupants of the mortgaged property had 14 days to exit the residence. A supporting affidavit attached a text message exchange between Knutson and the realtor conducting the January 10, 2017 court-ordered sale. Knutson’s texts reject that he is in a contract with the realtor, MCAP, or MCAP’s lawyer:
First he went with a bedrock OPCA standard;I am not in default as the document says, as I have given response to court of queen’s bench. I have proof of lading and signature from registered mail, so your contract with the courthouse is misleading and has not given full disclosure to you. I do not have a contract with you or with either corporation but if you wish to contract with me, I will send my terms and conditions and if you agree I will draft up a contract.
But then broke new grounds with the :FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT argument I'd posted on the other discussion;[17] Both parties filed Affidavits. In the Affidavit filed by Knutson on March 7, 2017, Knutson indicates “I am a Common Law man , of inherent jurisdiction.”, and attaches as proof his NOUICR and Registration of Live Birth. Knutson continues to say he has sent this lender another set of Get Out Of Debt Free letters, which are attached as exhibits. Knutson claims that proves no debt exists. He also says Charter, s 32 means the law of Canada does not apply to him: “I have never, nor am I now acting as agent of the government.”
In addition to relying on the :FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT Knutson filed a affidavit where he threw Belanger's completely discredited Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International gibberish into the mix.Potvin was just an amateur at impenetrable gibberish. One of the targets of a pending post also threw David Wynn Miller into the mix;
Unfortunately Queen's Bench chose not to seriously address Miller's innovative approach to legal scholarship;As best I can evaluate this item, I conclude this is a “judgment” of a purported US court, the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT”, issued on November 26, 2016 by “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-JUDGE: David-Wynn: Miller. The “judgment” is followed by a “:STUDY-GUIDE” which seems to indicate a strange kind of grammar. For example:
~4 = PRONOUNS = FOR THE SINGLE-ONE-WORD; FOR AN ADJUCTIVE-PRONOUN-OPINION OF THE FACT CHANGES WITH THE FACT INTO THE PRONOUN; FOR AN ADVERB-CONNECTS TO THE PRONOUN BEFORE AND ADVERB.
[19] The remaining ten pages are the Knutson MCAP mortgage, but that document has been annotated. Each page is marked in thick felt marker “:EVIDENCE:” and stamped with a legend:
:Syntax-word-key-meaning:
1=Adverb 8=Past-time
2=Verb 9=Future-time
3=Adjective 0=Conjunction
4=Pronoun NC=No-Contract
and is sometimes annotated with other text, such as “:STYLES-Boxing=:OMIT-VOID-CONTENT-FRAUD-SYNTAX-GRAMMER”. All words are then individually annotated with a hand-written number, which appears to correspond to the stamped legend.
[20] Though my analysis of the meaning of this peculiar item is hampered by its perplexing nature, I conclude the function of the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” decision and attached annotated mortgage document is that the mortgage contract is being proofread using an abnormal grammar code. The failure of MCAP to format its documents according to this outlandish linguistic system allegedly means the contract is void and fraudulent.
[25] The “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” decision I have reviewed and “Judge” Miller’s statements to Judge Meyer only hint at scope of Miller’s bizarre claims. For example, Wollongong City Council v Falamaki, [2010] NSWLEC 66 reports representation by “plenipotentiary judge David-Wynn Miller”, who shared “a little secret” with the Court: “Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract.” That insight is “astonishing”, or, in “Millerese”, “no contract”.
But nothing he threw against the wall stuck and he lost that one too;Appendix “E” - Knutson Affidavit of August 1, 2017
I, James Knutson, of Alberta, SWEAR/AFFIRM AND SAY THAT:
1. I James, a minister of GOD, am making a special limited appearance on behalf of the defendant [JAMES KNUTSON].
2. I know the US Printing Style Manual, which explains how to identify a CORPORATION, dictates the use of capital letters.
3. I am with the knowledge that the Clerk, who is the administrator of the CESTUI QUE TRUST, then appointed you Judge/master as the TRUSTEE for the TRUST and since neither of you can be the BENEFICIARY, that leaves me and therefore you are MY TRUSTEE. So as MY TRUSTEE, I instruct you to discharge this entire matter, with prejudice and award the penalties to be paid to me for this fraud in the amount of four fold (4 x $955,000 purchase price of the house) as per Luke 19:8 which states: (1611 KJV) And Zacheus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, & if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusations, I restore him foure fold. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of Cestui Que Trust and Cestui Que use definitions from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
4. Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 12:32; Numbers 15:15. (Ezekiel 33:6-10). I am in good faith, re lying on Her Majesty's duty to be in defence of the faith of the King James Bible in royal style, as such, so all of her agents by an Oath of Allegiance are faithful and bear true allegiance with her in that declared defence of the faith. I hope you will not be prejudice or discriminate against my faith and beliefs because I assure you I will not be the only one offended if you so choose to try and threaten or intimidate me to bow before a de facto Government. Yahuwah tells us to separate ourselves from commerce Matthew states that "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other'' (Matthew 6:24). Ye cannot serve God and mammon (de facto Government). I assure you that I will not be threatened or intimidated into submission to your false gods because Yahuwah commands me: Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a copy of Oath of Allegiance.
5. I demand my property be returned to me immediately. If denied, I intend to seek charges under private information in your private capacity utilizing some of these sections of the Criminal Code of Canada for my remedy 39(1), 122, 332, 336, 337, 346, 366, 386, 387, 388, 423, 794. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a copy of Criminal Code sections noted above.
6. I cannot emphasize enough that Yahuwah does not want me to bow to a false god, Deuteronomy 4: 1-2. Therefore, I must take a stand in His name as prescribed in His good book the authorized King James Bible, 1611 edition that is to give sanction to her majesty's courts. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a copy of scripture of Gods words of truth and law to be followed by man from the 1611 King James Bible.
7. I believe The law society of this country uses language like the Pharisees of Jesus' time, "Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him (Jesus) in his talk" (Matthew 22: 15), very similar to the legalese which the Government, Lawyers, and Judges us to confuse and entangle us in our talk.
8. I know that man's laws are to make money for the Corporation of Canada and to pay back the Interest on the money you the 'de facto government' have borrowed in fraud on my behalf from the I.M.F. in the form of my birth bond #, on my Birth Certificate.
9. I served the Court of Queen's Bench, Bishop & McKenzie LLP and RMG in response to a statement of claim with my Notice of Understanding and Intent AND Claim of Right. RMG did not reply and the Court of Queen's Bench and Bishop & McKenzie LLP returned the documents but did not rebut the claims therein, making it a tacit agreement in my opinion. Each was mailed via registered mail. This document is filed as exhibit "A" from my March 7th, 2017 affidavit.
10. I have still not received any evidence that a debt exists for JAMES KNUTSON after repeated attempts to obtain a validation that a debt in deed does exist I am with the knowledge that my signature was an asset for RMG and the actual means to obtain the funds by my wet ink signature on a promissory note.
The court went chapter and verse into a third lawsuit where a bank was suing Knutson for a loan he refused to repay. I won't go into detail, the amount involved, $5,921.87, was trivial. What it showed however was that nothing was to trivial for a man with apparently unlimited free time and a deep, deep, to the bone aversion to repaying money he'd freely borrowed. He responded with a biblical offense;[26] Not surprisingly, the “:FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT” decision purchased by Knutson from Miller was of no legal effect. On March 6, 2017 Gill J dismissed Knutson’s appeal and ordered that Knutson must vacate the mortgaged property by March 20, 2017.
Because, in his world, being asked to repay a loan was clearly fraud. But it all ended with complete victory to the fraudsters;7. I motion to dismiss this claim with prejudice and wish to seek damages in accordance with the 1611 King James Bible. Luke 19:8 And Zacheus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the halfe of my goods I giue to the poore, & if I haue taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him foure fold. Unless any [wo]man can rebut the words of GOD. Therefore I ask the court to award me in the amount of $23,687.48. Which is four fold of the amount to which they were trying to commit fraud against me.
The remaining part of the decision, starting at paragraph 34, is the court's review of whether or not it should impose court access restrictions on Knudson. If you're interested in a lot of legal analysis and copious citations feel free to read it yourselves. The court focused on the various categories of abusive OPCA schemes that Knutson had tried in court. These were, along with a detailed review of each;;[33] I conclude and confirm that these litigation activities of Knutson in these three debt collection actions are abusive.
1 - Strawman” Theory
2 - The Three/Five Letters
3 - Fee Schedules, Copyright in a Personal Name, and Other Threats
4 - Fractional Reserve Banking Theories and Promissory Notes are as Good as Cash
5 - The :FEDERAL-POSTAL-COURT Judgment
and a grab-bag of other 'Indicia'
Leading to;B. Other Indicia of Abusive Litigation
[81] In addition to the many variations on abusive OPCA concepts that Knutson has employed in his litigation, he has also exhibited other litigation misconduct indicia identified in Chutskoff v Bonora and its successor decisions.
[82] I conclude that Knutson’s attempt to re-open the Bank of Nova Scotia Default Judgment is a form of collateral attack. His litigation attempts to frustrate the collection of his debts and foreclosure were hopeless. His appeal in the MCAP action had no prospect of success.
[83] Knutson has also sought impossible or disproportionate remedies, including:
1. $1 million “common law” intellectual property claims on his name, biometric data, and bodily excreta,
2. “four fold” damages “per Luke 19:8”,
3. Charter remedies vs a non-government entity, a bank, and
4. criminal investigation and prosecution in a civil proceeding.
[84] The multiple orders that Knutson vacate the mortgaged residence in the MCAP action indicate he does not follow court instructions. He refused to comply with instructions to cooperate with the realtor hired to conduct the court-ordered sale.
[85] As the passages and documents reproduced from Knutson’s materials indicate he has advanced unmeritorious claims of conspiracy, fraud and improper conduct by institutions and lawyers.
But for once I'm going to declare myself on the side of the defendant. As far as I can see James was blatantly, illegally railroaded by a court that completely disregarded the valid, binding law that he'd argued in his defense and, in fact, made no direct mention of it whatever in the decision. The definitions in a 108 year old dictionary!V. Conclusion
[86] My review of Knutson’s litigation has identified multiple OPCA schemes, all of which are an abuse of court processes and the opposing creditor parties. Three of those strategies result in a presumption that he litigates in bad faith. His activities include multiple additional indicia of abusive litigation.
[87] On this basis I conclude this Court, on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction, should investigate whether Mr. Knutson should be made subject to court access restrictions. Knutson has 15 days from filing of this decision in the Court’s registry to submit to me written argument and 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.
As an aside the above quote regarding appointing the judge as a trustee then demanding that he follow Knutson's orders reminded me of one of my very early Quatloos postings when I attended the court hearing for Charles Norman Holmes way back in 2013.3. I am with the knowledge that the Clerk, who is the administrator of the CESTUI QUE TRUST, then appointed you Judge/master as the TRUSTEE for the TRUST and since neither of you can be the BENEFICIARY, that leaves me and therefore you are MY TRUSTEE. So as MY TRUSTEE, I instruct you to discharge this entire matter, with prejudice and award the penalties to be paid to me for this fraud in the amount of four fold (4 x $955,000 purchase price of the house) as per Luke 19:8 which states: (1611 KJV) And Zacheus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, & if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusations, I restore him foure fold. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of Cestui Que Trust and Cestui Que use definitions from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 3&p=163865
He'd tried exactly the same stunt with the same result;
. . . . . . . Charlie also told the judge that he (Charlie) had, also on the record and in front of witnesses, commercially appointed the judge as his trustee and the judge was now required, by law, to act in Charlie's best interests. Charlie said the judge had admitted he was Charlie's trustee (I'd missed that critial piece of evidence somehow) and he could not now renege on it. He threatened the judge that he was now in some form of criminal breach for dereliction of trustee duties if he didn't decide fully in Charlie's favour. . . . . .
However the State Actor in Commerce sitting on the bench and pretending to be a judge but unrobed and without a picture of the Queen, was unmoved by Charlie's anguished pleas for justice.