First, the issues they took to court in a desperate attempt to finally receive the justice due them;
 The allegations in the Statement of Claim may be summarized as follows. The Plaintiffs allege that they were charged with offences under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act on April 5, 2012 and that they pleaded guilty to the charges on “erroneous or incomplete or inaccurate” advice of counsel. The Plaintiffs seek an injunction “to refrain the Federal Crown from proceeding upon the Information” before the Provincial Court of Alberta on the grounds that they mailed two “private indemnity bonds” to the Attorney General of Alberta in which the Plaintiffs promised to pay to Alberta “a sum certain of money” in return for indemnification “against all claims, interest, charges, counts, taxes, imprisonment, restitution, community service, reimbursement, repayment duty, penalties, bail bond, peace bond, probation, fines, fees, surcharges, court fees, disbursements, alternative measures, sentences, criminal record” against both Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also seek an injunction to require the Attorney General of Canada “to give effect to the indemnities, and equities by fulfilling and performing the duties as stipulated” in the said bonds.
 The Plaintiffs allege that the Attorney General accepted delivery of the bonds and, upon acceptance without notice or protest, the Attorney General was appointed as trustee “to perform certain duties” as stipulated in the bonds. At paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs claim that “[c]ontrary to the expressed stipulations, prosecutors in the charge of the Attorney General continue to proceed and prosecute” the Plaintiffs and that the Crown prosecutor obtained a bench warrant for their arrest on November 21, 2016. In the concluding paragraphs, the Plaintiffs claim that proceeding to sentencing without their consent amounts to a breach of trust and “involuntary servitude reducing [the Plaintiffs] to chattel, with unlimited liability held to the account of Crown Prosecutor and the Attorney General of Alberta.”
And the Court's response to these pleadings? Prothonotary Lafreniere delivered a knee to the vitals;
 I see no need to waste valuable court time to write extensive reasons given that I completely agree with the written representations filed by the moving parties. Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ protestations to the opposite, they clearly fall within a class of individuals described in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571 (Meads) as “OPCA litigants”, who follow a well-known path of illogic, presumption, and pseudo-legal rants. The pleading before me is a classic case of a vexatious party seeking to foist on the Crown a unilateral agreement and trust obligations based on nonsensical arguments, as referred to by Mr. Justice Rooke in Meads at para 447: OPCA litigants frequently attempt to unilaterally foist obligations on other litigants, peace officers, state actors, or the court and court personnel. These foisted obligations take many forms. None, of course, creates any binding legal obligation. In that sense, these are yet more ‘magic hats’.
 It is plain and obvious that documents that purport to unilaterally impose an obligation on another party have no legal effect: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para 4. It follows that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
 For the sake of completeness, I should also briefly add that the Statement of Claim should be struck against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Mary Elizabeth Windsor and the Governor General of Canada as there are no allegations made against them personally. The pleading should also be struck against the Alberta Defendants as the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over the provincial actors. Moreover, and more importantly, the Statement of Claim should be struck on the grounds that it constitutes an improper collateral attack of criminal proceedings before another court. The Federal Court has no business interfering with prosecutorial discretion or staying criminal proceedings.
This is paragraph 4 of Papadopoulos v. Borg referred to in Meads;
 The documents were sent by registered mail to the defendants, and duly signed for by the addressees. The appellant’s approach appears to have been that if the defendants did not reply by affidavit to the documents served on them, they would be deemed at law to admit not only the total amount of his legitimate claim, but the extravagant sum of $49 million mentioned in the documents. The root of this approach appears to be a distorted view of the Bills of Exchange Act. It is, however, apparent that the documents do not even slightly resemble genuine bills of exchange. Furthermore, signing for the registered mail that contained the documents does not amount to an “acceptance” of any legitimate bill of exchange that might be in the envelope. “Acceptance” in the Bills of Exchange Act is a technical term, and is not the same as acknowledging physical receipt of the envelope. The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit.
Papadopoulos v. Borg
2009 ABCA 201
And some heavy storm clouds are ominously gathering for our intrepid litigator Glenn Bogue;
 Finally, I note that the Statement of Claim was signed by a lawyer, Glenn P. Bogue, and that Mr. Bogue also filed written representations in opposition to the motions before me. In Meads, Justice Rooke observed at paras 643-645 that, as an officer of the court, each lawyer has certain duties not only to the client, but also to the justice system as a whole. In particular, it is a lawyer’s duty to not participate in or facilitate OPCA schemes.
 I am very troubled to see that Mr. Bogue accepted a retainer to draft and file pleadings which ultimately assist in the implementation of a vexatious litigation strategy. I therefore direct that this Order and Reasons, along with a copy of the Statement of Claim and the parties’ motion materials, be delivered to the Law Society of Upper Canada for review, to determine whether any sanction is warranted against Mr. Bogue.
To make it really official the bad news for Glenn is also in the court registry:
- 2017-02-06 Edmonton Letter sent by Registry on 06-FEB-2017 to Law Society of Upper Canada enclosing Order dated 31-JAN-2017 (ID 31) Copy placed on file.