Bogue is Back A-Lawyerin' in Canada!
I was tempted, very, very tempted, to title this part of my postings after a direct quote from Glenn regarding his theory in respect to the origins of the North American aboriginals. Space aliens impregnating ancient Peruvians! Or, as Glenn vividly describes this formative event from the alien fornicator's perspective;
"It's Saturday night boys and here we go! Sperm going everywhere!"
But no. I want this to be a dignified posting so I'll get back to the sperm drenched vista later. This post will cover topic 2 which I noted earlier;
2 - His reportings in Quatloos and recent activities in Canada.
So, with his life in tatters after three decades in the United States, Glenn Bogue returned to Canada and started practicing law in Ontario, thirty years after first being admitted to the Ontario bar. This, as far as I know, was the first time he'd practiced law in Canada and his legal career here, which I'm guessing is soon to end (more on that later), lasted only two years. In that time he has, as far as I can determine, lost every single case that he's litigated. Given this peerless and potentially soon to be tragically terminated career I think it fitting to give you all a photo of Glenn in his Canadian court lawyerin' garb;
Sure beats that manic axe murder shot in my previous posting.
Glenn seems to have almost immediately acquired an unconventional client base. We've covered Glenn in the following in Quatloos discussions;Meet the Steinkeys - Poriskyites with a Sovereign Lawyerhttp://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11310Andrew Miracle Et Al v. The Queen of Englandhttp://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11032
And Glenn was retained as counsel for another Poriskyite, Debbie Anderson. I've just written his involvement with Anderson up and you can read about it here;http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747&p=244255#p244255
I'm not going to go into detail about his activities in respect to the Steinkeys, Debbie, and Sir Miracle. It's all given in detail in the discussions. It's sufficient here to give the opening sentence of my Sir Miracle post where I first note Glenn's involvement in the file.
So, time for a ride on the express train to Crazytown. Sir Miracle is the driver and Glenn Bogue, a Toronto lawyer, is the fireman.
This is the batshit crazy Statement of Claim that Glenn coughed up for that action;http://www.mediafire.com/download/vohd0hvwsr12j3j/Miracle_v_The_Queen_(scanned).pdf
Pure insanity, start to finish and with no legal merit whatever. The Statement of Claim was struck without leave to amend and the action was dismissed. This is a very notable achievement in respect to a Statement of Claim filed by a practicing lawyer.
Here is the Bogue litigation I've been able to locate;Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v SI
2015 ONSC 5692
late appeal dismissed
2016 ONSC 3111
expedited appeal application dismissed
2016 ONCA 512
SCC appeal deniedSir Miracle litigation
Miracle v. Canada (Attorney General)
2017 ONCA 174
Miracle v. Maracle III
2017 ONCA 195Federal Court action
Miracle v The Queen of England, Ottawa
T-195-16 (FC) Civil attack on behalf of Mohawk family action
AC v CAS Ottawa
2016 ONSC 2353, struck out
2016 ONSC 4452, Glen goes to the wrong court
2016 ONSC 2787, appeal quashed Steinkeys
Steinkey v Canada
2017 FC 124Debbie Anderson
R v Anderson (11 April 2017), Vancouver
CA 44064 (BCCA) - Glenn's last great litigation effort that I witnessed.
Other reported Bogue litigation;Arcari v Dawson
2016 ONCA 715, [leave denied SCC]Jodha v Dineen
2015 ONSC 6848, aff’d 2017 ONSC 298R v Nielsen
2016 ONCA 635
I'll consider this one from the case discussed on Quatloos;
Chalupnicek v CAS Ottawa
2016 ONSC 2787http://canlii.ca/t/gpnsc
which could serve as an epitaph for all of Glenn's litigation. It was dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Again a rare event when a case is handled by a lawyer but not rare in Glenn's world. The decision reads;
 On April 11th, 2016 the Registrar acting at my direction issued a notice pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 advising the plaintiffs that this action might be stayed or dismissed as it appeared to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. Counsel for the plaintiff was also provided with a copy of my reasons (2016 ONSC 2353 (CanLII)) including a temporary stay.
 As provided by the notice, counsel for the plaintiffs has provided written submissions in which he attempts to demonstrate that the action should neither be stayed nor dismissed. I did not require submissions from the defendants and for the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.
 I will not repeat in detail what was said in the original endorsement. Rule 2.1 was enacted not to deprive parties of the right to properly bring matters before the court but to provide a streamlined process to eliminate cases that are clearly an abuse of process before they consume inordinate amounts of time and cost for all involved.
 The court of appeal has endorsed the jurisprudence developed under this rule and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from that decision was recently refused.  The rule is therefore to be “interpreted and applied robustly” but “limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading” and the pleading justifies “resort to the attenuated process.”
 In his response, as directed by the court, Mr. Bogue certifies that he acts for the plaintiffs and was expressly authorized to issue the statement of claim. I am satisfied therefore that the plaintiffs instructed Mr. Bogue to bring this action and that they did so with the benefit of his legal advice.
 The submissions do not adequately address the abuse of process posed by a collateral attack on a judgment which was at the time the statement of claim was issued, a judgment under appeal. They do not explain reliance on laws which are not in force or justiciable in Ontario.
 The pleading and the submissions make certain assertions about the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights including metis rights. It is abundantly clear that such rights must be recognized by Canadian courts and it is equally apparent that the extent of such rights are justiciable in the courts of Ontario. Similarly, international law and international treaty obligations of Canada may form part of domestic law. To assert those rights, however, they must be properly brought before the court. It is not enough to simply recite constitutional rights or historic wrongs in a pleading to give the pleading merit. The action must be properly framed and constituted. That is not the case here.
 The plaintiffs also call upon “the common law of the land” as if that is some pre-existing super constitutional principle which the court must recognize. The common law in force in Ontario has a precise definition. It is the common law of England as it existed on October 15th, 1792 as subsequently modified by Canadian judicial decisions, by statute and by the Constitution of Canada.
 With respect to judicial immunity from civil claims, Mr. Bogue refers to the Nuremberg trials to illustrate that there are limits to immunity and that judges participating in “crimes against humanity” or “genocide” cannot hide behind judicial immunity. The pleading however contains no allegation against the judges beyond the discharge of their ordinary judicial functions. Nor does he address the jurisdiction of an Ontario court over an Alberta judge.
 As was the case with the pleading, the submissions refer to the “International Tribunal Against Church and State” and the “International Common Law Court of Justice” which allegedly indicted and convicted The Queen, The Pope and Prime Minister Harper of murder and conspiracy to murder. These are non-existent or self-created tribunals which cannot be recognized by this court and whose decisions can have no relevance to creating a cause of action against these defendants.
 In his submissions, Mr. Bogue defines the plaintiff father as “sovereign” or “sovereign metis” with “an allodial land claim that reaches back to the Saxon kings and Magna Carta”. These are examples of what courts have identified as a strategy of pleading “specific and irrelevant formalities and language” portrayed as having legal significance. This is a hallmark of much frivolous litigation in Canada designed to “disrupt court operations” and to frustrate the legal rights of litigants.
 As drafted the statement of claim contains no recognizable cause of action. It is on its face an abuse of process and none of the defendants should be called upon to respond to it.
 The court therefore orders as follows:
1) Pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 (1) this action is dismissed as it appears to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
2) As the defendants were not called upon to make submissions, I decline to order costs.
And Glenn, being Glenn, appealed this loss to the wrong court;
Chalupnicek v The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
2016 ONSC 4452http://canlii.ca/t/gsmh6
When he finally somehow found the correct court the appeal was quashed;
The litigation I cited above which has not been yet reviewed on Quatloos is worth reviewing to further illustrate Glenn's style of legal actions. We'll start with;
Arcari v Dawson
2016 ONCA 715, [leave denied SCC]http://canlii.ca/t/gtwwl
This was an appeal from yet another trial loss. Glenn was acting for a woman who was injured in an accident crossing the road. This, from the appeals decision, is what happened at the original trial;
 On December 2, 2009, a car struck the appellant, Lynda Arcari, as she crossed the street in front of a hospital in the City of Kitchener, beside a crosswalk. The appellant’s original lawyer hired an accident reconstruction expert to produce a report about the cause of the accident. This engineer found that the driver’s speed caused the accident. The appellant sued the driver in December of 2010 and her action was set to go to trial in September 2015.
 However, the appellant hired a new lawyer. When he attended at the accident scene, it was “obvious” to him, given what he asserted in oral argument to be his unique professional experience, that the design and safety features (or lack thereof) at the crosswalk were contributing factors to the 2009 accident. The appellant accordingly moved to add the respondents, the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, as defendants.
 The motion judge observed that the appellant’s expert "attended at the accident scene within one year where all of the design features or deficiencies were there to be seen, noted and reported on.” The motion judge found that the respondents’ alleged negligence “was as close to within the “actual knowledge” of the [appellant’s] lawyer and engineer as it can come”. In his view, it was not a case in which discoverability and due diligence could play a role in extending the limitation period. He concluded that the appellant ought to have known that an act or omission of one of the respondents had contributed to her injuries. He awarded the respondents costs, calculated on a substantial indemnity scale, in the amount of $14,000.
So right off the bat representing a new client Glenn cost her $14,000.
So he appealed and this is what the appeals court decided;
The Appellant’s Position Regarding the Discoverability Issue
 The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in concluding that she ought to have known that an act or omission of the respondents contributed to her injuries. She submits that she has a reasonable explanation as to why she could not have discovered her claim against the respondents through the exercise of reasonable diligence. She hired an expert engineer who did not identify the respondents as having contributed to her injuries. Counsel (note - Glenn) argues that hiring the engineer was sufficient due diligence to postpone the limitation date. He does not suggest that her expert was negligent. Rather, counsel says that the issue was so complex that that it was not even obvious to the engineer, although it was to him.
 In her factum (but not in her oral submissions), the appellant further argues that the motion judge failed to take into account the full extent of her injury in assessing discoverability.
And Glenn won! Well, he won a symbolic victory, which is about as good as it gets in Glenn's world. The court dismissed the appellant’s motion to add the respondents but it granted leave to appeal the costs disposition at the original trial. The court felt that the $14,000 awarded was too high and reduced the amount to $10,500. But since the court then tacked on another $5,500 in costs for losing the appeal she was liable for a total of $16,000 in costs, $2,000 more than she would have paid had she not made the appeal.
Glenn of course appealed this outrageous decision to the Supreme Court of Canada but leave to appeal was not granted.
But what about this next one?
Jodha v Dineen
2015 ONSC 6848http://canlii.ca/t/gm75h
aff’d 2017 ONSC 298
Bogue actually seemed to act fairly reasonably in this one given that it is Glenn Bogue we're discussing. The issue was a client attempting to revive some long dead litigation now past the statute of limitations and, like Arcari v Dawson, Glenn, or his client, wanted to add new defendants to it.
Bogue argued for allowing the clock to run on the limitation period because his client was medically incapable of pursuing litigation;
 Although not mentioned in the plaintiff’s motion record or factum, Mr. Bogue suggested in argument that the limitation period would be extended because of section 7(1)(a) of the Limitations Act which provides that the limitation period does not run during any period of time when the plaintiff “is incapable of commencing a proceeding in respect of the claim because of his or her physical, mental or psychological condition”. I have already discussed in that part of these reasons dealing with litigation delay that there was no medical evidence to support any claim that the plaintiff’s physical, mental or psychological condition prevented him from proceeding with this action. Similarly there is no medical evidence to support any claim that the plaintiff’s physical, mental or psychological condition prevented him from commencing an action against Warner or adding him to the existing action at a much earlier date. In fact the plaintiff admitted at his cross-examination that his medical condition had not prevented him from pursuing this action and that he failed to do so because he had lost interest and was fed up.
But Bogue didn't bother to provide the court with any evidence to support his client's claimed disability;
 In fact, on cross-examination, although he initially stated the main reason for not pursuing the action was because he was sick, the plaintiff admitted that his psoriatic condition did not prevent him pursuing this action. In particular when he was asked whether as of July 15, 2014 (the date of the Sokoluk report and four months before the dismissal) “was your medical condition any impediment to you dealing with your lawsuit against Mr. Dineen in any way?”, his answer was “no”. He did not know what his medical condition in the summer of 2014 had to do with his ability to pursue the litigation against Dineen. Indeed his medical condition did not prevent him from filing a notice of intention to act in person in February 2014. It did not prevent him from dealing with the title issues and retaining a lawyer to have his mother’s interest in the property transferred to him and having his aunt’s mortgage discharged in April and May 2014. Further, by July 2014 he was in Toronto and back to work at his print shop and his medical condition did not prevent him from working (although he could arrive late and leave early because he owned the shop).
Instead the court concluded that the client had dropped the litigation because he lost interest in it;
 Rather, the plaintiff did nothing to advance his action after Warne was removed as his lawyer in May 2013 was because, at least by the time the status notice was issued, he “wasn’t really interested” in the lawsuit and was “fed up”. He “just mentally gave up” and “didn’t do nothing”. He also stated that and he was out of money and the action was too expensive to pursue although if he wanted to, he could have borrowed the money. He “just figured” he “got screwed and that was it.” With “the stress, it just wasn’t worth it.” He also admitted that getting his mother’s interest in the property transferred to him without the aunt’s mortgage in April and May 2014 was one of the reasons that he lost interest in pursuing the action against Dineen.
Bogue kept getting mixing up regarding which party his client wished to add to the non-existent proceedings.
 In case I am wrong in my determination that the action should not be revived, I consider on its merits whether Warne or RH should be added as a party to the action. It is unclear whom the plaintiff wishes to add as a party. The plaintiff and Mr. Bogue have from time to time talked about adding Warne as a defendant and the heading in the plaintiff’s factum is “Adding Mr. Warne as a Party”, but the notice of motion in the motion record is for an order “adding Ricketts, Harris as a defendant”. Given my view that neither defendant should be added, it is not necessary to resolve this contradiction, however I will assume that the intention of the plaintiff was to add both Warne and RH as defendants.
And the judge wasn't happy about Bogue and/or the plaintiff making an unwarranted claim of fraud against one of the proposed defendants then not bothering to provide a cause of action in respect to the purported fraud;
 The second claim advanced against Warne is “for fraudulently advising the court” (on the motion to be removed from the record) that he had obtained the plaintiff’s consent to the motion although the plaintiff strongly objected unless the retainer was repaid. In the facts supporting this “claim” the plaintiff pled that Warne obtained the removal order while misadvising the plaintiff that he should not be coming to court to address his concerns about a refund. There are two fatal problems with this claim.
 In the first place, the claim is out of time. The discussion with Mr. Warne’s articling student about whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to return to court (as described earlier in these reasons) took place on the date that the motion was heard, May 15, 2013. Master Peterson’s removal order citing in the preamble that “the client having advised counsel that he would not be appearing to oppose” was served by mail on the plaintiff on May 16, 2013. It is deemed to be served on May 23, 2013 and the plaintiff admits having received it. The limitation period expired, at the latest, on May 23, 2015, more than a month before the notice of motion to add RH was served.
 Secondly the claim as set out in the proposed amendments is untenable and sets out no cause of action. The other claims advanced are for “refund of retainer” and “damages” for negligently causing pain, but for this claim the plaintiff states only that he makes a claim against Warne for “fraudulently advising the court…” He does not claim any damages arising from this alleged fraudulent advice nor does he seek any declaratory or other relief. In the absence of any damages or other relief claimed for Warne’s “fraudulent” statement to the court there can be no cause of action in fraud or otherwise.
 While the evidentiary foundation that could prove or disprove the proposed claim is not to be considered on the motion (and I have not considered it), I wish to make it clear that the claim made that Warne fraudulently advised the court that the plaintiff consented to the removal motion is clearly not true. Firstly, the preamble to the order refers to the plaintiff “having advised counsel that he would not be appearing to oppose” and does not say that the plaintiff “consented”. Secondly the plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that he told the student that he would not be re-attending to oppose and the student should just do what he had to do to get it done.
This litigation ended up costing Bogue's client $29,000 in court cost awards.
R v Nielsen, 2016
This was just a short and simple appeal review of a woman wanting out of jail. However, just as in the court hearing I recently attended in the Debbie Anderson trial and reported in Anderson's discussion, Glenn has a problem figuring out exactly what jurisdiction an appeals court has;
 Justice LaForme dismissed a motion for an order releasing the applicant on bail and he refused a request to expedite the appeal in what was then an ongoing habeas corpus proceeding. The applicant seeks a review of that order. The applicant has been released on bail rendering any question of the lawfulness of her continued detention and the related habeas corpus proceeding moot.
 The applicant’s submissions, in our view, have no connection to the merits of the order made by LaForme J.A. and give no cause to review the terms of that order. It seems that the applicant wants this court to dismiss the outstanding criminal charges because, in her view, she was improperly detained in solitary confinement for a period of time pending trial. The propriety of the charges and the propriety of the continued criminal proceedings are not properly before this court at this time. Those are matters for the trial court and we understand they have been scheduled in the trial court.
 The motion to review the order of LaForme J.A. is dismissed.
 We agree with the Crown’s submission that the underlying appeal is moot. The appeal is dismissed.
So on to his current personal problems with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Somebody's put a bee in their bonnet about Glenn's somewhat unorthodox litigation style resulting in a Glenngagging. He's been suspended from practicing as an Ontario lawyer which, as far as I'm aware, extends to all of Canada. He can certainly no longer practice here in British Columbia. As I just posted in the Anderson discussion;
Debbie was (as far as I was aware) scheduled for a case management conference at 10:00 AM on April 12th. As always I was on time but just as I was approaching the court entrance I saw the Crown counsels walking out. So I accosted them with questions about what happened. Turns out that the hearing was scheduled for 9:15 and lasted about five minutes. Immediately at the start Glenn told the court that he could no longer represent Debbie because the Law Society of Upper Canada had suspended him from practicing law!
This was his original suspension hearing order issued March 24th 2017 which was hanging over him at the hearing on April 11th. His hearing was scheduled for April 12th.http://www.mediafire.com/file/hex6ec93nucbe40/Bogue_-_LSUC_Notice_to_Suspend.pdf
Note the comments;
1. The Law Society has received evidence that raises serious concerns about the Responding Parties competence and/or capacity to practice law.
2. In representing clients in a number of litigation matters, the Responding Party has repeatedly relied on unsupported theories and arguments that misunderstand the nature of the Canadian legal system and basic principles of law.
In other words exactly what I saw in court on the 11th.
You can see his latest suspension order here. Just click on his name;https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/pages/Orders.aspx#43
He told the Court that the Law Society of British Columbian sent him letter telling him he needed a permit to practice in BC. As I understand it he must now apply for a permit. He doesn't currently have one because the Law Society generally allows lawyers from other provinces to represent clients in British Columbia without one. However once he was scheduled for a suspension hearing the Law Society decided that he required a permit which I'm doubting they will grant him if they take a good look at his judicial history.
I attended an Anderson hearing on April 11th in Vancouver which I've recorded on Debbie's discussion. Glenn attended by phone and took the usual judicial shitkicking. That might well have been his last appearance acting as a lawyer for a Canadian client. If so, what will Glenn focus on next? What other interests does he have?
Nutrition for openers. I got that courthouse shot of Glenn from this website;http://hiyyz.com/Glenn-Bogue/107525368663139294924
I am a Nutritional Historian, Author and Lawyer. My main passion is nutritionally accurate information...what the human cells are to be fed...what they are programmed ultimately to do...and who fashioned them.
He said on this website that he owns Wisdom's Choice Supplements. However checking into his claimed business got me this almost unique response from Google;
"No results found for "Wisdom's Choice Supplements""
And keep in mind that he claims he was divorced because the Pennsylvania courts wouldn't allow him to give his kids a healthy diet.
He also may now finally have some time to finally finish that Fifth Book of Isis. But his primary interest seems to be new-age craziness.
First by dipping his toe in public speaking;https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ancient-aliens-anunnaki-the-gods-online-conference-tickets-25072427305
And then the YouTube videos. Always the YouTube videos. And Aquarian radio. I'm not going to post everything available on the web, I'm running out of time for Glenn, but here is a sample.;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgBsd2VwUcAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjBaWzCKZks
At 1 hour 35-40 minutes Glenn discussed various OPCA conspiracy and idiocy, but...
At 1 hour 48-52 minutes Glenn explains aliens are going to arrest bankers - and that Mercantile/Commercial law was brought from another planet by ALIENS! Glenn can't remember which planet, though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgBsd2VwUcA&t=2614shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqYPysH_L4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sed1ZEez8Kc
This Aquarian Radio recording can serve as a representative finale to Glenn's write-up;http://aquarianradio.com/2016/12/25/jesus-the-anunnaki-122516-researcherauthor-glenn-bogue-hosts-janet-kira-dr-sasha-lessin/
8-10 minutes - Tax in the US can only be assessed against corporations.
13-15 minutes - US Tax Court and Federal Court litigation - 1916 Income Tax Act is not valid, income is only from real estate, vs wages.
18-20 minutes - I was a fat contractor, until I learned about enzymes! Now I have photographic memory again!
23- 25 minutes - I filed a SCC appeal for the Mohawk Medicine Man - Harper kidnapped the children to get a pipeline built! OH, and a US Indian Chief has Kai Chek's Chinese Nationalist government assets.
32-34 - Glenn talks about sexual fluids
60-61 - Taxation in Canada is 75-80%!
63-65 - Glenn meets a very tall woman who is a tree.
107 - he related how wondrous things are happening in the bedrooms of the nation as a result of his Stargate orgasms.
108 - He started on about how the Christ-consciousness would be re-established starting in the aboriginal world through the Clan Grandmothers. He's going to start an aboriginal gold-backed bank that "the people" own. This will somehow demolish Trump. He sued the Basil Bank of International Settlement for "the global debt" in exchange for all the deaths of all the aboriginal people in Canada. "Did you win?" Sadly the case was ruled frivolous. By a white Polish female judge! He implied that the judge thought the aboriginal deaths frivolous rather than the legal merits of his case. Apparently Canadian judges base decisions on the wrong laws. They are supposed to use the laws of the ancient tribes of North America.
Our aboriginals are the result of ancient alien gods "fornicating" with Peruvians. A quaint way to put it. He could have said "breeding" with Peruvians or impregnating them but he went with fornicating. Bogue cited Chariots of the Gods as a reference source and gave this memorable description of the fornication process "It's Saturday night boys and here we go! Sperm going everywhere!" Then Glenn told how he went through a Stargate to Sweden and back in a single moment while, I believe, having an orgasm. Then what sounded like a hungry cat started yowling in the background and it was time to stop.