When initially charged with income tax evasion the Steinkeys hired conventional lawyers and tried a bunch of Charter stuff, that failed. So they pled guilty and the Crown and their lawyers came to an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission - 20 month conditional sentence. Then they fired their lawyers and started filing A4V paperwork and demanded that their guilty pleas be withdrawn. Court refused to withdraw the guilty pleas or change their sentences. So they hired Glenn Bogue to represent them.
If that name sounds familiar it's because I've discussed him in the past and mentioned him just recently here;
Glenn is a Toronto lawyer who now seems to be the go-to guy for Freeman types across Canada. He is currently representing Poriskyite Debbie Anderson here in British Columbia and also represented Sir Miracle and some other plaintiffs in their doomed attempt to get the Canadian government to cough up $2 Quadrillion in damages. Here is a review of the innovative, cutting-edge legal tactics Glenn tried in that action;
So with Glenn at the helm the tried to stop their sentencing hearing by demanding an adjournment so that the case could be heard by the correct court, the Federal Court of Canada. Apparently, in Glenn's world, the Federal Court has jurisdiction in equity for criminal matters, there is no Income Tax Act, his clients are not really guilty, there are many legal errors, and his clients have paid their debts with A4V paperwork. However the sentencing judge declined to adjourn on the basis that he had jurisdiction in the matter and sentencing continued. Since the prior agreement had been tossed out the window the Crown submitted that it wanted the Steinkeys sentenced to a 12 to 18 months jail sentence. Bogue went for no sentence at all. The judge ordered 22 month conditional sentence for Robert and 18 months conditional sentence for Terry.
So the Steinkeys, through Bogue, filed an action at the Federal Court. The Statment of Claim initiating proceedings starts at page 8 of this document;
In addition to the Statement of Claim pages 15 to 22 are the Province of Alberta's response to the Statement of Claim and pages 1 to 13 are Alberta's motion for an order to strike.
This is Bogue's opening shot to free his clients in the Statement of Claim;
1. The Attorney General of Alberta is in possession of and/or control over PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND(s) .as delivered and is-a.trustee to the issuers of said Bonds, or that the issuers are owed a fiduciary ducy of care by the -possessor and controller of said Bonds.
2. Proceeding to sentencing against the Steinkey's, upon Information in Docket No. 120400049Pl by agents of or those in the charge of the Attorney General of Alberta whilst the Attorney General holds possel!sion and/or control over the PRIVATE INDEMNITY BONDS(s) amounts·to a breach of the stipulations found therein said Bonds.
3. A breach of the stipulations amounts to a breach of trust as against the office of Attorney General of Alberta.
4. The Bond is validated as an instrument settling the case between the Crown and the
Steinkey's·as the Bond was not returned as stipulated for dishonouring the instrument.
Time to stop and consider the above quote. Firstly the Federal Court of Canada has absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter because it has no jurisdiction over criminal law. The Steinkeys were charged under provisions of the Income Tax Act which is federal legislation but enforcement of the Act, while done through the Canada Revenue Agency and the federal prosecution service, must be done through provincial courts. That's why all of my court reporting on the Poriskyites was done with my backside planted on a chair in either the Provincial Court of British Columbia or the Supreme Court of British Columbia. This is absolutely fundamental and is as basic as it gets for legal practitioners. Yet Glenn is pursuing his case in Federal Court on the totally invented basis that the Federal Court has jurisdiction in equity for criminal matters, whatever that is supposed to mean in his world. I can guarantee that the Federal Court of Canada won't agree with him on that one.
After this application is struck without leave to amend the Steinkeys, if they actually want to make a valid appeal, will have to face the court of the dreaded judge Rooke. In Alberta appeals of summary conviction criminal trials are appealed to the province's superior court, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. If, alternatively, the Steinkeys want to argue that the Alberta Provincial Court did not have jurisdiction over them this must be done through a judicial review, again at Queen's Bench. Given Queen's Bench's obvious hostility to Freeman type arguments I'd anticipate Glenn getting some rough handling if he takes the Steinkeys' appeals there. Which might be why he's currently trying to get the Federal Court to hear this. But then Glenn is a big fan of doing end-runs around court procedure. If you recall, in the Sir Miracle case, Glenn tried to get the Federal Court to agree not to tell the Crown that there was to be a hearing by requesting that the hearing be done on an ex parte basis. It makes winning a lot easier if the other side to an action doesn't know that it's the other side.
Secondly Bogue's claim that the Steinkeys have "paid their debt" through Private Indemnity Bonds is legally totally meaningless. Firstly these "bonds" are the three/five letter scheme foisted unilateral contract bullshit so beloved of Chief Rock Sino General that has already failed times beyond counting in previous court decisions. However, even if the Steinkeys had tendered actual real payment, so what? You can't buy your way out of criminal charges by paying back the stolen money. It's simply astounding that an actual accredited lawyer is filing court documents saying all this.
So what does Bogue want from the Federal Court as a result of the Crown accepting (AKA "not refuting") their fake bonds? An injunction!
5. An interlocutory and permanent/prohibitive injunction be directed to refrain the Federal Crown from proceeding upon Information in the provinciai Court of Alberta: Docket No. 120400049Pl,
6. An interlocutory and permanent Mandamus Order be directed to require The Attorney-General of Alberta to give effect to the indemnities and equities by fulfilling and performing the duties stipulated therein the PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND(s).
Again, this is from an actual real lawyer representing his clients in an actual real court. The rest of the Statement of Claim is an indignant diatribe about the perfidious Crown greedily accepting these very valuable, entirely legitimate bonds then reneging on their part of the agreement by not stopping the proceedings against his client.
And that's it. That's how Bogue is going to get the Steinkeys off the hook for their stamped and sealed convictions. So how did the Crown respond after being revealed as having dishonourably reneged on their part of the Indemnity Bond agreement while keeping the bonds?
I . This claim should be struck without leave to amend because the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action and is an abuse of process.
5. This claim is an abuse of process; it is a collateral attack on an existing tax prosecution in the Provincial Court of Alberta, is brought without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim or over the Alberta Defendants in the Federal Court and improperly advances organized pseudo-legal commercial argument (OPCA).
6. An applicant seeking to strike a claim must satisfy the Court that there is no reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. 3 There is no reasonable prospect that this claim will succeed and it should be struck for the reasons that follow.
Note that a court agreeing that proceedings should be struck without leave to amend is as low as it gets in the legal world. It shows that the lawyer that initiated the proceedings is so incompetent that he can't get past the first step of getting his case accepted for a court hearing. So why is the Crown so confidant that this is the case here?
2. The Plaintiffs filed the Statement of Claim in this action on November 29, 2016. As against "The Province of Alberta via The Attorney General of Alberta" (the Alberta Defendants) it appears to allege that delivery of a so-called "Private Indemnity Bond" to the Attorney General of Alberta foists some sort of sentencing agreement in a tax prosecution involving the Plaintiffs in the Provincial Court of Alberta.1 These allegations are nonsensical, have no support in law whatsoever and are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of this honourable Court.
Nonsensical? Here in Canada lawyers, by custom, refer to their opposing counsel as "my friend". Very civilized. I've seen them using that respectful term even when they were close to being in the legal equivalent of a back-alley knife fight. And yet the Crown calls the arguments of opposing counsel as "nonsense"? What happened to professional comity between counsel? Is it that Crown is actually disdainful of Glenn's legal acumen?
And it gets worse.
8. The Plaintiffs allege an agreement to sentencing through mere delivery of a so-called Private Indemnity Bond to the Attorney General of Alberta. Firstly, even assuming that the document was delivered and not disclaimed as alleged in the Statement of Claim (which is denied, but assumed for the purposes of this motion), delivery of a nonsensical document does not constitute any agreement as to sentencing in a tax prosecution of the Plaintiffs in the Provincial Court of Alberta. Further, failure to adhere to the terms of the nonsensical document does not give rise to any cause of action in contract, trust, fiduciary relationship or anything recognized by law.
Abuse of Process - No Jurisdiction in Federal Court
10. Rule 22l(l)(f) provides that a claim should also be struck ifit constitutes an abuse of process. "A statement of claim that pleads a cause of action beyond the court's jurisdiction is an abuse of its process".
11 . The Plaintiffs plead7 they were charged with offences under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act and entered guilty pleas in the Provincial Court of Alberta. As such, the subject of this claim is within the jurisdiction of that Court and this claim constitutes a collateral attack on that Court's rulings and process.
12. It is "a fundamental rule that a court order, made by a court having jurisdiction to make it, stands and is binding and conclusive unless it is set aside on appeal or lawfully quashed." Such an order may not be attacked collaterally, that is, in a proceeding other than one with the specific purpose of reversing, varying or nullifying it.
13. This Statement of Claim seeks to influence sentencing after the entry of a guilty plea in a matter acknowledged to be before the Provincial Court of Alberta. As such, it is a collateral attack on those proceedings and an abuse of process that should be struck in its entirety.
Then the final indignity, branding Glenn as an OPCA lawyer;
Abuse of Process - OPCA litigation
18. Finally, the Statement of Claim constitutes OPCA litigation which is an abuse of process and has no legal meaning or effect. It is well established that there is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts.
19. Courts have recognized that: "OPCA litigants frequently attempt to unilaterally foist obligations on other litigants . ... These obligations take many forms. None, of course, creates any binding legal obligation .... Common examples of these foisted agreements purport to appoint someone a fiduciary, establish a contractual relationship or declare an OPCA person no longer has an obligation, such as to pay income tax. Some purport to unilaterally settle lawsuits or legal claims, without court direction."
20. This Statement of Claim purports to unilaterally foist some sort of sentencing agreement in a tax prosecution of the Plaintiffs in the Provincial Court of Alberta through delivery of a so-called "Private Indemnity Bond" to the Attorney General of Alberta.
21. First, the purported use of a so-called "Private Indemnity Bond" was specifically rejected as pseudo-legal make believe in Service Credit Union Ltd. v. Parlee16
• In that case, the bond allegedly instructed a third party entity to pay the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench to settle the foreclosure action. Master Schlosser said:There are many reasons why this document is worthless. First, the "Strawman" is a myth. Mr. Parlee is ordering a payment by a figment of his imagination. Second, the Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable" is likely supposed to be paid out of a secret bank account or other analogous resource operated by a government entity. This is probably why Mr. Parlee mentioned the "treasury board" in his Oct. 1, 2015 submissions. He believes that with the correct combination of documents he can unlock an "A4V'' account that will then pay the court and make the foreclosure go away. As I have previously explained, this too is an exercise in make-believe.
Even if one could settle a lawsuit with a promissory note of some kind to the court, there is another issue. The "Indemnity Agreement" cannot bind the Court Clerks because it is no agreement. It is a declaration of a relationship signed by only one party- Mr. Parlee. A contract requires "a meeting of the minds". Here that is obviously absent: All of which takes us back to the central premise of most of these schemes, that silence is acceptance of something the perpetrator is attempting to foist on the recipient ....
The documents referenced by Mr. Parlee at the October 1, 2015 hearing have no legal effect. They do not establish that he has paid the pre-foreclosure debt secured by the Parlee Lands. The WeRe Bank and Private Indemnity Bond documents have no value, except to the conmen who sold them ....
22. In this case, the so-called Private Indemnity Bond purports to foist agreement to release the Plaintiffs from liability for their guilty pleas in the tax prosecution in the Provincial Court of Alberta. It is not possible to foist a sentencing agreement on a prosecutor in a tax matter in the Provincial Court of Alberta by delivery of documents on the Attorney General of Alberta. As in Seritus Alberta, this is an exercise in make-believe and the so called Private Indemnity Bond has no value and no legal effect
23. Second, even if there was a sentencing agreement in the Plaintifrs tax prosecution, it is not enforceable by action in this honourable Court The misguided attempt to do so is an abuse of process.
24. As an apparent OPCA claim, the Statement of Claim should be struck, in its entirety with costs
And that is where things currently stand but I'm not on the edge of my chair fretting about the outcome. All that Bogue has done with this filing is waste the court's time and his client's money. The Federal Court will toss it out and the Steinkeys will have to think long and hard whether or not they want to take their chances in an appeal to Queen's Bench.
I haven't kept on top of Debbie Andeson's trial because it is being held too far away for public transit. However with Bogue now on the job representing her I have no doubt that CanLII and the Federal Court will soon supply me with plenty of new material to post.