Meet the Steinkeys - Poriskyites with a Sovereign Lawyer

[Burnaby49]

I've not yet discussed Terry and Robert Steinkey although they are Poriskyites who were recently convicted of income tax evasion. I was somewhat hesitant to write up their saga because they are in Alberta and this blocked me from attending any of their hearings or getting any documents. However they have now tried to move their action to the Federal Court of Canada where anyone has access to filings and I finally have something tangible to present. I'll give a short background before addressing their doomed appeal of their tax evasion convictions at the Federal Court.

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 Then they fired their lawyers and started filing A4V paperwork and demanded that their guilty pleas be withdrawn.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;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11304#p239224

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;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11032#p223963


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;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/490kioqr6 ... strike.pdf

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!

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?

INTRODUCTION

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).

III. ARGUMENT

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.

[Burnaby49]

I forgot to include a problem the Steinkeys had in 2015 which, while not apparently related to their tax evasion charges, might have indicated severe financial stress which could have motivated them to some extent. Their home was in such a distressed state of disrepair that Alberta Health Services condemned it and required them to move out until a large list of deficiencies was remedied.

ORDER OF AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION
ORDER TO VACATE

To: Terry Steinkey and Robert Steinkey

“the owner” “the owner”

And To: All Occupant(s) of the following Housing premises:

RE: Those housing premises located in Grande Prairie, Alberta and municipally described as:
10019 – 94 Avenue, Grande Prairie

WHEREAS I, an Executive Officer of Alberta Health Services, have inspected the above noted premises pursuant to the provisions of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c. P-37, as amended;

AND WHEREAS such inspection disclosed that the following conditions exist in and about the above noted premises which are or may become injurious or dangerous to the public health or which might hinder in any manner the prevention or suppression of disease, namely:

a. Windows for the bedrooms do not meet emergency egress requirements. Openable area is less than 547 square inches.
b. Windows are not weatherproof (Single pane windows).
c. A few windows are not installed with insect screens.
d. Window frames and sills throughout the house are in a state of disrepair.
e. Front door frame and door itself is in a state of disrepair.
f. Washroom does not have natural or mechanical ventilation. Window in the washroom is permanently closed.
g. Electrical covers are missing for various outlets inside the house.
h. Floor in the bedroom located at the back of the house and the basement has cracks.
i. Ceiling at various locations inside the house has cracks and paint is peeling.
j. Washroom sink is leaking water.
k. Smoke alarms are missing outside the bedroom hallway.
l. Wall in the basement is cracked and water is infiltrating inside the basement.
m. Water is pooling on the basement floor near the bottom riser of the stairs.
n. Low headroom clearance for stairs going down to the basement.
o. Support posts in the basement have their bottoms cut off.

Which required these repairs before the house was considered fit for habitation;

AND WHEREAS, by virtue of the foregoing, the above noted premises are hereby declared to be Unfit for Human Habitation.

NOW THEREFORE, I hereby ORDER and DIRECT:

1. That the occupants vacate the above noted premises on or before August 4, 2015.
2. That the Owner immediately undertake and diligently pursue the completion of the following work in and about the above noted premises, namely:
a. Replace bedroom windows with a window that has a minimum openable area of 547 square inches or greater.
b. Ensure windows are weather proofed (Double pane).
c. Install insect screens for windows that do not have it.
d. Repair all window frames and sills.
e. Repair the front door.
f. Provide either natural or mechanical ventilation in the washroom.
g. Shroud or properly cover all exposed electrical wires.
h. Repair cracks in the floor.
i. Repair cracks in the ceiling.
j. Repair faucet in the washroom.
k. Install smoke alarms outside the bedroom hallways.
l. Contact a professional structural engineer or a Safety Codes Officer for inspection/assessment of the basement. Structural deficiencies must be corrected according to the requirements stated by the professional structural engineer or a Safety Codes Officer (Support post, cracked walls, low headroom clearance and any other deficiencies identified by the professional structural engineer or a Safety Codes Officer).

3. That until such time as the work referred to above is completed to the satisfaction of an Executive Officer of Alberta Health Services; the above noted premises shall remain vacant and secure from unauthorized entry.

The above conditions were noted at the time of inspection and may not necessarily reflect all deficiencies. You are advised that further work may be required to ensure full compliance with the Public Health Act and regulations, or to prevent a public health nuisance.

DATED at Grande Prairie, Alberta, August 4, 2015.

http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/ass ... 2015-A.pdf

A bit surprising since only a few of those could really be considered very significant. No insect screens? Washroom window permanently closed? A leak in the sink? So what? But leaks in the basement wall are a significant structural issue and this one is pretty stunning;

o. Support posts in the basement have their bottoms cut off.

Why would anyone do that? They hold the house up. Anyhow the document essentially indicated that their house was falling apart.

[Burnaby49]

The Crown replied to the Steinkey's Statement of Claim;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/zy77qheiv ... ike_#2.pdf

About what you'd expect.

J. An Order striking out the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim without leave to amend pursuant to Rules 221 (l)(a) and (t) of the Federal Courts Rules.

2. In the alternative, an Order dismissing the action for mootness.

Keep in mind that the Statement of Claim was filed by an actual real lawyer.Who apparently can't correctly identify his oppposition;

4. Furthermore, an Order:

(a) amending the style of cause to substitute "Her Majesty the Queen" in the place of"The Government of Canada via The Attorney General of Canada",pursuant to Rule 76(a) of the Federal Courts Rules; and

(b) amending the style of cause to remove "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth", "Mary Elizabeth Windsor'', and "The Governor General of Canada".

The heart of it is right here;

7. The Statement of Claim should be struck out without leave to amend pursuant to Rule 22l(l)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, because it discloses no reasonable cause of action and it is plain and obvious that the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the Statement of Claim.

Because Bogue filed this lawsuit against the Crown in a court that has no jurisdiction to hear the issue.

The rest is just icing on the cake;

8. The Statement of Claim should be struck out without leave to amend pursuant to Rule 22l(l)(f) of the Federal Courts Rules for being an abuse of the process of the Court, because it is premised on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument and seeks relief that undennines the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

9. The action has become moot because the Plaintiffs were sentenced on January 3, 2017, with the sentencing judge rejecting the Plaintiffs' argument that the Provincial Court lacked the jurisdiction to sentence them.

10. The proper naming of the Crown is "Her Majesty the Queen", pursuant to subsection 48(1) of the Federal Court Act, RSC 1985, c F-7.

11. The Defendants "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth", "Mary Elizabeth Windsor", and "The Governor General of Canada" are not proper defendants because they cannot be sued in their representative capacity and the Statement of Claim seeks no relief from these Defendants in their personal capacity or makes reference to any specific behaviour of them.

The Crown went into more depth on why the lawsuit should be tossed starting at page 13;

2. The Plaintiffs now ask this Court to enjoin the Attorney General of Canada (the "Federal Crown") from proceeding to a sentencing against them. This is the only relief sought against the Federal Crown; the Plaintiffs do not claim damages.

3. The Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to this relief because they mailed two "private indemnity bonds" (the "bonds") to the Attorney General of Alberta ("Alberta") in which the Plaintiffs promised to pay Alberta "a sum certain of money" in return for their release from any further sanction or penalty.

Statement of Claim at paras 4, 9-11 , 16, 22

4. The Plaintiffs state Alberta accepted the terms of these bonds by failing to return them. Statement of Claim at paras 4, 10, 13, 15-16 5. The Plaintiffs assert that the Federal Crown is also bound by the terms of these bonds.

Statement of Claim at paras 4-5, 20-21

6. The Statement of Claim is premised on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument ("OPCA"), that is, a general rejection of judicial and state authority. This is evident from the Plaintiffs' assertion that, in light of the so-called "private indemnity bonds", if the Plaintiffs are sentenced without their express consent, it will reduce them to mere chattels.

Statement of Claim at paras 15, 23

7. The Statement of Claim should be struck. It discloses no reasonable cause of action, it is outside the jurisdiction of this Court to consider, and it is an abuse of the Court's process.

22. The Plaintiffs' request for this Court to enjoin the Federal Crown from proceeding to a sentencing against the Plaintiffs in the Provincial Court is tantamount to asking this Court to order that the criminal proceedings against them be stayed.

23. For the Plaintiffs to have any hope of success, they must establish not only abuse of process by the Crown, but also that the abuse in question is disproportionate to the societal interest in their effective prosecution. This is a high threshold that is rarely met and only met in the "clearest of cases".

R v Babos, 2014 SCC 16 at paras 31, 44, 69, [TAB Ell]

24. In this case, the Plaintiffs' bonds, which provide for their deemed acceptance if not returned within three days of receipt, amount to nothing more than OPCA foisted unilateral agreements that cannot create any binding legal obligations.

Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 447, 449-450, 463, 469, [TAB E12]

25. The Plaintiffs' argument that Alberta accepted the terms of the bonds by not returning them as stipulated must fail because an offer cannot be accepted through silence. Rather, for there to be acceptance, the recipient of an offer

"must take a positive step to accept that offer, acknowledge its terms and benefits, and communicate that fact". As stated by Rooke A.C.J.Q.B. in Meads:

An objective person knows that he or she cannot usually
be held bound in contract by simple receipt of an offer.
Many OPCA foisted unilateral agreements feature
language that demands its recipient respond or rebut an
obligation by a certain deadline. If not, then the
agreement proclaims the recipient is bound by its terms.
A moment's consideration shows it is absurd that the law
would respect that requirement.

Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 458-472, [TAB E12]

The Crown quite rightly pointed out that even if the bonds were valid and the Crown had accepted them that still didn't get the Steinkeys off the hook;

39. Even if it were true that the Plaintiffs and the Crown agreed to settle the Plaintiffs' sentences by accepting the bonds, enforcing such an agreement would circumvent the trial judge's residual discretion to reject joint submissions and thereby subvert the principles of sentencing.

40. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' statement of claim is also an abuse of process because it is premised on OPCA foisted unilateral agreements, as discussed above. This scheme defies the rule of law and inflicts unnecessary expenses and disruption on the Defendants and the Court.

Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 71-72, [TAB E12]

41. The Statement of Claim should be struck without leave to amend for being an abuse of the process of the Court, further to Rule 221 ( l )(f).

If there is one certainty in this entire pointless action it is that the Crown will get their request in paragraph 41.

[eric]

Remind me not to hire Mr Bogue to represent me the next time I run into legal difficulties:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3948110

[Burnaby49]

The Steinkeys aren't just relying on Bogue. Robert has published this public notice which, no doubt, served some purpose in his own mind.

Published 2016-09-19 19:13 UTC
Take notice that I, Stienkey, Robert, unincorporated private-subject of the Queen's Highness, Elizabeth the Second, Supreme Governor of this Her Realm the Dominion of Canada, am the grantee, and heir/beneficiary by nature and characteristic for absolute estate of all equitable and legal right, title and interest in/to/for the Estate of “ROBERT STIENKEY” ab initio February 7, 1956, CERTIFICATE No.1956-07-002823 and authenticated Registration of a Live Birth No. 07-002823. Any adverse claimants who have an interest in said Estate or claim a prior, equal or superior equitable or legal right, title or interest in said Estate capable to confuse, suspend or clog same are HEREBY ORDERED to present upon Oath or Affirmation their adverse interest to Agent C/O 10113 93 Avenue, Grande Prairie, Alberta [T8V 0J9] before the expiration of thirty (30) days of first publication, namely by October Nineteenth Two Thousand and Sixteen, or BE IT RESOLVED, that the legal and equitable rights, titles and interests are wholly, totally and completely the sole superior domain of Stienkey, Robert of Grande Prairie, Alberta, good against all the world.

Claims due by 2016-10-19
Location Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada
Location 2 Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

You will note that Robert has spelled his own name incorrectly throughout the document. No idea whay he's done that either.

https://www.noticeconnect.com/notices/e ... ey-robert/

[noblepa]

The Steinkeys aren't just relying on Bogue. Robert has published this public notice which, no doubt, served some purpose in his own mind.

<snip>

You will note that Robert has spelled his own name incorrectly throughout the document. No idea whay he's done that either.

https://www.noticeconnect.com/notices/e ... ey-robert/

Doesn't that make his pronouncement, to borrow a latin phrase so beloved of the sovcit crowd, "void, ab initio"?

If capitalization and/or punctuation make all the difference, surely a spelling mistake in his own name must be fatal.

[Burnaby49]

I have to assume he can spell his own name correctly so the error is deliberate. I have no idea why.

[Burnaby49]

Steinkey stuff is coming faster than I can post it. Ron Usher, once a Quatloos poster, gave a radio interview on them this morning and it's already in the news;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3950141

Anyone wanting to hear the interview can find it here;

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/861611587834/

[The Observer]

I have to assume he can spell his own name correctly so the error is deliberate. I have no idea why.

Unless he relied on some guru to prepare and file the paperwork for him?

[notorial dissent]

Also, too, you have to watch those strawmen, they're an illiterate bunch. OR, he could just be your every day average run of the mill I D I O T, after all being tied up with the Poriskyites doesn't speak of large quantities of brain power after all.

[Burnaby49]

Here's Terry Steinkey's notice, for what it's worth;

https://www.noticeconnect.com/notices/estate/?page=7

[Burnaby49]

The Steinkey's action in the Federal Court has been struck out;

20 2017-01-31 Edmonton Order and Reasons dated 31-JAN-2017 rendered by Roger Lafrenière, Esq., Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion in writing Doc. No. 3 Result: granted The Court's decision is with regard to Motion in writing Doc. No. 8 Result: granted Filed on 31-JAN-2017 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1325 page(s) 182 - 190 Final Decision

The granted motions were the Crown's request to toss the whole action in the wood chipper.

[notorial dissent]

As they say up north quelle surprise!!!!.

And the infamous Prothonotary Lafrenière strikes again. Another death blow to fruitcake justice and jurisprudence.

[Burnaby49]

And, like an octopus still thrashing around with a spear through its brain, the Steinkeys continued to make submissions to the Federal Court to amend their Statement of claim even though they'd already lost;

2017-02-01
Edmonton

Written directions received from the Court: Roger Lafrenière, Esq., Prothonotary dated 01-FEB-2017 directing that "The Plaintiffs motion material submitted by e-filing on January 31, 2017 shall be rejected for filing on the grounds that leave to file amended responding submissions was not sought and, in any event, the material was received by the Registry following the disposition of the Defendants' motion to strike. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Statement of Claim shall be rejected for filing on the grounds that the Statement of Claim was struck without leave to amend and the matter is therefore res judicata." placed on file on 01-FEB-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

[bmxninja357]

And, like an octopus still thrashing around with a spear through its brain,

your analogy really makes me wonder what exactly it is you watch on youtube when not posting.....

i dont even think its shark week.
peace,
ninj

[The Observer]

your analogy really makes me wonder what exactly it is you watch on youtube when not posting.....

He obviously was enjoying a plate of hot calamari which he washed down with a pint of Molson.

But to be technically correct about his comment, that spear would have had to pierce not only the octupus' head but all 8 tentacles as well since the nervous system of the octopus is decentralized and some of its brain functions are distributed throughout its body.

[Burnaby49]

your analogy really makes me wonder what exactly it is you watch on youtube when not posting.....

He obviously was enjoying a plate of hot calamari which he washed down with a pint of Molson.

But to be technically correct about his comment, that spear would have had to pierce not only the octupus' head but all 8 tentacles as well since the nervous system of the octopus is decentralized and some of its brain functions are distributed throughout its body.

Calamari is squid. Had some on Sunday with wine.

The simile came to mind because I just finished reading (not video ninja) "Other minds : the octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of consciousness" by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Entire book on an analysis of the thought processes and intelligence of octopuses and how it compares to humans. As Observer said various brains scattered about. What I found fascinating was that each arm has its own brain and the octopus does not directly control them. It just gives a general order and the tentacles act, essentially, as independent contractors without the brain knowing exactly what they are doing. So a spear through the central brain will kill it but the arms will still function for a while. Kind of like the Steinkeys and their court case.

[notorial dissent]

The ironic thing is that octopi are considered to be quite intelligent, and I am not sure but what they wouldn't beat the Steinkeys out in a head to head, or is it tentacle, match?

[morrand]

The simile came to mind because I just finished reading (not video ninja) "Other minds : the octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of consciousness" by Peter Godfrey-Smith. ... What I found fascinating was that each arm has its own brain and the octopus does not directly control them. It just gives a general order and the tentacles act, essentially, as independent contractors without the brain knowing exactly what they are doing.

What I found fascinating, in turn, is that you gave the title of that book in picture-perfect ISBD format.

And, you know, octopus neurology and stuff.

[Burnaby49]

The simile came to mind because I just finished reading (not video ninja) "Other minds : the octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of consciousness" by Peter Godfrey-Smith. ... What I found fascinating was that each arm has its own brain and the octopus does not directly control them. It just gives a general order and the tentacles act, essentially, as independent contractors without the brain knowing exactly what they are doing.

What I found fascinating, in turn, is that you gave the title of that book in picture-perfect ISBD format.

And, you know, octopus neurology and stuff.

Simple explanation. I'd forgotten the full name so I just cut and pasted it from the Vancouver Public Library catalogue. I'm, in turn, impressed that you noticed it.