Meet the Steinkeys - Poriskyites with a Sovereign Lawyer

[Burnaby49]

The Steinkey's just lost their case at the Federal Court of Canada. Badly. Very badly. Think Custer's last stand badly.

First, the issues they took to court in a desperate attempt to finally receive the justice due them;

[2] 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.

[3] 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;

[5] 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:

[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’.

[6] 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.

[7] 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;

[4] 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
http://canlii.ca/t/23nxk

And some heavy storm clouds are ominously gathering for our intrepid litigator Glenn Bogue;

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/xr5pfavxp ... FC_124.pdf

[notorial dissent]

The only real point the Steinkeys have in their legal maudnering, since I, and apparently the infamous Prothonotary Lafreniere don't seem to see it as a valid appeal and while they have in that they appear to have had "“erroneous or incomplete or inaccurate” advice of counsel", which while true from all appearance, doesn't alter the fact that the rest of the writing is the purest of moose droppings.

Got well and truly stomped. Looks like Bogue may finally be coming in for some of his own as well, deservedly and about time.

[The Observer]

Prothonotary Lafreniere delivered a knee to the vitals;...

And by the 5th paragraph. It was as if Lafreniere wanted to get this over with and quick. What is the record for the earliest OPCA reference appearing in a court citation?

[Burnaby49]

Prothonotary Lafreniere delivered a knee to the vitals;...

And by the 5th paragraph. It was as if Lafreniere wanted to get this over with and quick. What is the record for the earliest OPCA reference appearing in a court citation?

Probably another Lafreniere decision. Keep in mind his role at the Federal Court. He's not a judge although he exercises some of the powers of one. He, and his fellow prothonotarys, are essentially gatekeepers to keep routine matters and the absolutely hopeless garbage from clogging the judge's calendars. His decision in this case makes it clear in which of those catagories the Steinkey's action falls.

[Burnaby49]

The decision is now up on CanLII;

http://canlii.ca/t/gxjt6

Making Glenn Bogue's court chastising public knowledge.

[Burnaby49]

Time for another Steinkey update.

The story so far - The Steinkeys, a married couple, were Poriskyite tax evaders who pled guilty to income tax evasion and received a conditional sentence and a mandatory minimum fine based on the taxes evaded. They almost immediately tried to repudiate their guilty pleas but the court wouldn't allow it. So they decided to appeal. However they chose not to take the correct and proper route to an appeal which was to the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. Instead they chose to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada, a court that has no jurisdiction in the matter whatever. And they hired a sovereignist lawyer to assist them. He did a grand job by stuffing their appeal with meaningless sovereign gibberish. The Federal Court stomped on them and reported the lawyer to his law society with the suggestion that sanctions against him might be appropriate.

So they finally decided to appeal to the correct court, the home of the dreaded Judge Rooke, and below is a copy of their Notice of Appeal.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/oicmdn0md ... ppeals.pdf

The grounds of appeal of the Appellant are as follows:

(I) The learned trial judge erred in finding that the Canada Revenue Agency did not misuse its audit powers for the predominant purpose of a criminal investigation, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(2) The learned trial judge erred in refusing to set aside the Appellant's guilty plea.

(3) The learned trial judge erred in imposing a fine based on "the amount of the tax that was sought to be evaded" in circumstances where the Appellant had no intent to evade tax and pleaded guilty on the basis that he had no such intent.

(4) The learned trial judge erred in imposing an unduly harsh Conditional Sentence Order.

(5) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise.

5. The Appellant seeks the following relief or remedy:

(I) A declaration that the Canada Revenue Agency misused its audit powers for the predominant purpose of a criminal investigation, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(2) That the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.

(3) Alternatively, that the sentence be reduced.

A few points;

1 - Glenn Bogue, the sovereign lawyer, is gone. They have retained an individual who seems to be an everyday lawyer.

2 - Surprisingly, given that they've argued sovereign nonsense throughout the entire process, they've abandoned it here and are presenting entirely conventional arguments. Maybe they are actually in fear of the wrath of Rooke. The Alberta Queen's Bench is very hard on freeman-Sovereign arguments and this might have been a reason the Steinkey's attempted their Federal Court end-run around an appeal to Queen's Bench.

3 - Grounds 1, 2, and 4 are entirely conventional. The bread and butter of appeals. However 3 is a hopeless one and makes little sense in context of a guilty plea.

(3) The learned trial judge erred in imposing a fine based on "the amount of the tax that was sought to be evaded" in circumstances where the Appellant had no intent to evade tax and pleaded guilty on the basis that he had no such intent.

The fine they are referring to is mandatory, the judge had no choice but impose it if the defendants were found guilty. And they pled guilty. By pleading guilty they agreed that they had an intent to evade tax. You can't plead guilty on the charge of tax evasion but argue that you only pled guilty on the understanding that you had no intent to evade tax. It makes no sense. The guilty plea is complete legal proof of intent.

[notorial dissent]

This latest effort, or probably too little too late, at least has the qualities of brevity and succinctness, even if it is mostly, well all really, wishful thinking.

I don't think 1. has any traction at all, since didn't they got nailed because of the criminal investigation against Porisky? 2. is questionable. 3. is just fantasy, since as you pointed out, the judge had no option there. 4. just doesn't make sense in context, and 5. hunh????

The only thing I can think of is that the currentest lawyer told them he'd take the case ONLY if they let him do his job and no nutjobbery allowed. It looks to me like he is doing the best he can with the crap hand his clients dealt themselves, and I doubt he is going to get far with it. I think they pretty well hung themselves out to dry, although the Bogueyman didn't do them any favors by playing their game, or more really his game, they were just the latest sacrificial victims on his alter of ego.

[The Observer]

The only thing I can think of is that the currentest lawyer told them he'd take the case ONLY if they let him do his job and no nutjobbery allowed.

I agree, but I have to wonder did he tell them the whole truth - as in "The bottom line is that your appeal, no matter how hard I try, is going to down in flames."

[notorial dissent]

The only thing I can think of is that the currentest lawyer told them he'd take the case ONLY if they let him do his job and no nutjobbery allowed.

I agree, but I have to wonder did he tell them the whole truth - as in "The bottom line is that your appeal, no matter how hard I try, is going to down in flames."

That is an interesting question, and one that had crossed my mind as well. I would think that any ethical lawyer would certainly told them they didn't have a snowflake's chance, particularly after the mess they made of their case originally. The question of whether they heard him or actually listened is also a good one as well. I'm still somewhat shocked and impressed that they actually got a real lawyer and let him file a real appeal, in the right court even.

[Burnaby49]

The only thing I can think of is that the currentest lawyer told them he'd take the case ONLY if they let him do his job and no nutjobbery allowed.

I agree, but I have to wonder did he tell them the whole truth - as in "The bottom line is that your appeal, no matter how hard I try, is going to down in flames."

You people and your nattering negativity. I have no issues with belittling people like Russ Porisky and Keith Lawson who, through their ignorance of law, actually lost at trial. But it is unfair to make cheap disparaging comments about the Steinkeys when they actually won their case. I have to admit I was no better until this morning, thinking that their guilty plea meant that they'd lost and been found guilty. But that just shows how little I know about tax law. I've been shown irrefutable proof about their victory from a top legal expert and I'm man enough to admit that I was wrong. This is the expert, argue with him;



That's right, Apu is back!

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11166&p=235334

Explaining to we dullards how the Steinkeys have actually had a great legal victory.

Summary
Recently two former Paradigm Education Group students (private property advocates), Bob and Terry Steinkey, avoid jail by using Apu’s Theory on how Canada’s income tax really works. They used Apu’s Theory for pointing out Canada’s laws protects private property rights; their contracts stated their income’s status is their private property and not Canada’s public money; and they declined all benefits paid from public money. This is the first time someone with tax offenses used Apu’s Theory to avoid jail1. It also fits with CRA admitting in this November 2015 press release that Paradigm taught tax avoidance and not tax evasion.

PEG Private Property Advocates Finally Avoid Jail
Bob and Terry Steinkey were PEG private property advocates. Using Apu’s Theory, they pointed out their PEG Contract for Hire stated their income is their private property and is not Canada’s “public money”. Since they chose (while under their CFH) to not to hold the CPP / ITA “office” that uses Canada’s “public money”, they arguably owed no “office” fee (income tax) for work done under their CFH. Following Apu’s Theory, they arguably could not report their private property income on CRA’s T1 form, but only Canada’s “public money” they received for certain other tasks (which they reported). Nonetheless, they were charged with making false or deceptive statments on their returns!

Steinkeys Never Broke the Law
Apu’s Theory gave Bob and Terry Steinkey the confidence that they did nothing illegal. That is probably why the judge overruled the Crown and accepted their guilty pleas to something they never did8 (false or deceptive statements in a return) in exchange for avoiding jail (since they never broke the law).

Avoid Jail Means Conditional Jail Sentence
That is why CRA’s press release on the Steinkeys refers to “conditional jail sentences”. CRA makes it sound as bad as possible, but it is just house arrest. This CBC news article merely regurgitates CRA’s propaganda, er, press release. There was no investigate journalism. (And the press wonders why people are seeking alternative news sources). Even this well-respected tax law firm did not bother to check what really happened and also just regurgitated CRA’s propaganda.

Conclusion
Apu’s Theory enables two former PEG private property advocates to avoid jail. The judge would not have overriden Crown and ordered no jail time unless Apu’s Theory arguably is close to the truth in explaining how Canada’s income tax system really works. Perhaps the copies of Apu’s Theory sent by registered mail to over forty CRA officers means the system cannot ignore it anymore? Is that why CRA admits in this press release that Paradigm Education Group taught Canadians tax avoidance and not tax evasion?

Go ahead, try and refute that!

https://canadaincometaxislegal.is/parad ... us-theory/

Although a few points are nagging at me. If the Steinkey's won why are they acting as if they lost? Why are they trying to appeal a victory?

And what about Apu? He's really Eric Ho, a Poriskyite who fled the country during his own trial where, I assume, he was also assured of victory using his own theory. So why did he scurry away? Perhaps he's coming back now that the Steinkeys have proven him correct.

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby, if you're going to be insulting, at least get it right, it is nabobs, I refuse to be a people....

Well there you have it, Apu says they never broke the law, so it is all resolved.

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby, if you're going to be insulting, at least get it right, it is nabobs, I refuse to be a people....

Well there you have it, Apu says they never broke the law, so it is all resolved.

Nabobs didn't fit in context. Why would I compare you to my favorite coffee brand?

http://www.nabob.ca/en/the-nabob-story/history

I'm having one right now as I type this. Note that building in the 1896 picture. It was once the Nabob warehouse but is now Steamworks, one of my favorite pubs.

http://www.steamworks.com/

[The Observer]

If the Steinkey's won why are they acting as if they lost? Why are they trying to appeal a victory?

Please! First you insult nd and me for failing to recognize that the Steinkeys won when they lost, and now you are wondering why they are acting as if they lost? If you are going to swallow the illogical posturings of Apu, then at least be man enough to swallow them whole and digest fully. It is painfully obvious in Apu's world that if a win is a loss, then the Steinkeys must put on the appearance of losing so that everyone can see that they won. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Steinkeys break into prison, put on the standard jailhouse jumpsuits and occupy the first vacant cell they can find. That way, they will really be demonstrating to everyone how big their victory really was.

[Burnaby49]

What can I say? I post an update and all I get is just more pusillanimous pussyfooting from the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.

[notorial dissent]

What else should you expect when a Poriskyite is involved???? They are their own worst enemies.

[Burnaby49]

Ok, I'm going to give up even pretending that I can follow what is going on with the Steinkeys or keep up with their filings. Just after reporting that they'd decided to take the correct path of appealing to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench I came across this on the Federal Court of Canada website;

2017-02-17
Edmonton
Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore dated 16-FEB-2017 directing that "As the Plaintiffs' motion seeks to have Mr. Prothonotary Lafrenière reconsider his own Order, and to recuse himself, the matter, including all timelines and filing of materials, shall be held in abeyance until Mr. Prothontary Lafrenière's return in early March, and then referred to him at that time for directions and disposition." placed on file on 17-FEB-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

2017-02-16
Edmonton
Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 16-FEB-2017 re: Documents submitted via e-filing on February 9, 2017, directions sought from the Court pursuant to rule 72.

2017-02-16
Edmonton
Consent on behalf of all parties to electronic service of all documents filed on 16-FEB-2017

So they are appealing their guilty pleas at two different courts at the same time. One of which, the Federal court, has no jurisdiction in this matter whatever. Since I can't see a "normal" lawyer, like the one they have handling their Queens's Bench appeal, pursuing this dead-on-arrival issue at Federal court I have to assume that either Glenn Bogue is still in the picture or that they are unrepresented in this matter. I'm going with Glenn still being involved. That notification the Federal Court sent to the Upper Canada Bar Society is going to cause Glenn problems if not withdrawn so he has a vested interest in getting Mr. Prothontary Lafrenière to recluse himself on the grounds of bias.

[notorial dissent]

And the (unintended) comedy just keeps on coming. Poriskyites, the gift of stupid that just keeps on giving. Although n this case, I think you are right, this sounds more like a last hurrah from the Bogueyman before he gets his wings clipped once and for all.

[The Observer]

Is it possible that Glenn filed this in defiance of the Steinkeys' decision to pursue a legitimate appeal?

[Burnaby49]

I can't see it even with a lawyer like Glenn. If he did he'd be finished. The Upper Canada Bar isn't the harshest of bar associations but I doubt they'd keep a lawyer on the rosters who's gone rogue and is pursuing, for personal reasons, a case his ex0clients dropped. And does it in their name.

From what I've seen of the Steinkeys it's quite possible that they are pursuing two actions at the same time. When they started their clearly doomed action at Federal Court with that nonsense about having cleared the charges with personal bonds I figured they were willing to try anything.

[notorial dissent]

I may be misremembering, but I got the impression from the court listing that the action was filed electronically, which I would think meant came from their lawyer of record??? They don't strike me as the brightest pair to begin with so signing up for electronic filing might be a bit of a challenge, and if Bogue was still listed as AOR then wouldn't they be blocked from doing so?

Bogue may also see this as the writing on the wall and decided to go out with a bang. If he filed a pointless action in the Federal Court then this would seem in keeping, but who knows?