Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

[notorial dissent]

Oh, say it ain't so!!!!

[Burnaby49]

A victory for Glenn! The Upper Canada Law Society didn't disbar him!! At least not yet. They have some concerns about his mental condition so they want him to go for a psychiatric examination. Specifically;

[1] Murray Walter Chitra (for the panel):– The Law Society has brought a motion under s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (“Act”) for an order requiring that Glenn Patrick Bogue (“Lawyer”) be examined by a forensic psychiatrist to assess whether he is incapacitated, any prognosis, and any appropriate terms and conditions in light of his medical condition.

[2] For the reasons that follow, we are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Lawyer might be, or might have been, incapacitated and that the proposed examination would provide significant assistance in deciding the issue.

[3] After considering recommendations from both parties on the physicians to be specified, we will issue the order set out at conclusion of this decision.

What could have triggered such animosity towards a level-headed guy like Glenn? Nothing more than Glenn's innovative tactics that apparently alarmed the stullified old fossils at the Law Society;

[19] The evidence disclosed that the Lawyer has brought a number of proceedings or motions on behalf of individuals before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada.

[20] The defendants or responding parties have included Children’s Aid Societies and their employees, federal and provincial governments, judges and lawyers in their personal capacity, law firms, the Queen personally, the Governor General personally, the Prime Minister personally, Parliament and the Bank of Canada.

[21] It is the assertion of the Law Society that these lawsuits are based on bizarre international conspiracy theories. It was argued that these are articulated in rambling arguments that demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of Canadian law and raise reasonable concerns that the Lawyer may be delusional.

[22] A number of examples of this were offered. In one e-mail to opposing counsel dated February 18, 2016 the Lawyer wrote:

In the big picture, the Vatican (bank) pushed its Feidal [sic] system across the English channel in 1066. It then combined with King Philip to kill the Templar Knights and steal their International bank which today is the IMF/BIS World Bank.

This is the force behind Canada’s big 5 private banks, who successfully placed Ontario $300 Billion in debt, owed by every lawyer, judge, doctor. Millionaire in Ontario. YOU will pay this debt as the other 99% of Ontarians are buried in debt.

The Vatican bank via Beijing will shortly foreclose on Canada as the Tar Sands are failing and our dollar sinks to U.S. $, 60, and USA defaults, which is a mathematical certainty.

Through its Corporate Crown shell (Canada and Ontario), the Bank of England has undertaken the Cultural Genocide of Canadian Aboriginals simply because they still hold Allodial title to our land, as opposed to Fee Simple Feudal Use Title that Ontario lawyers (unwittingly) defend for the Queen.

[23] In another e-mail dated May 18, 2016 the Lawyer wrote to opposing counsel:

You now have our Amended Motion.

Given its massive scope, I am writing to summarize its content …

The Queen’s legitimacy to sit as Monarch is also today questioned by:

1) the illegitimacy of Edward IV,

2) her conviction for murder via Canadian eye witnesses in a Common Law Court, and

3) her Oath to the Pope to obtain Vatican gold to back her illegal, fiat currency banks …

You will note we seek to add Justin Trudeau for his secret Oath to a power foreign to our Aboriginal roots.

You will also note the Pope has dissolved all corporations which glean their existance [sic] from any insurance bonds backed by Vatican gold. This may affect your firm’s legitimacy to practice law.

[24] The material before us disclosed other examples of similar thinking. The Lawyer:

• has claimed that Canada is part of the United States and subject to the U.S. Constitution;

• advised opposing counsel that he would be appealing a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to a fictional tribunal;

• sought damages in the amount of $30 million against Ontario and Alberta judges and lawyers for crimes against humanity;

• in pleadings filed with Federal Court, alleged that the “HSBC funneled the money that enabled Italy’s criminal syndicate Mdrangheta to run a Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult between the Vatican and Montreal. Former Prime Minister Harper and several Cabinet Ministers are alleged to be involved”;

• in a reply factum in the same litigation, argued “Our birth certificates are BONDS complete with 2 UPC codes that allow the Crown to pledge the bonds to Private Banks to be traded globally on the bond market, backed by human labor (and the gold of the Private Vatican Bank), which is tantamount to a continuation of the slave trade and feudal system by elite European supremacist families.”

• pled that “The Privy Council is the inner Circle of the secret Order of the Garter, headed by The Vatican and The Queen, which controls all secret societies throughout the world” and sought from the Court a monetary award of $3 quadrillion “which amount equals the global sub-prime real estate debt”; and

• in a criminal proceeding in British Columbia, argued that Canada is a Crown Corporation registered on the New York Stock exchange and “as such is merely a subsidiary corporation of United States Inc., which in turn is subsequent corporation to the East Indian Trading Company, all of whom have headquarters in Washington, D.C.”

[25] The Law Society suggests that these and many other statements and actions on the part of the Lawyer raise reasonable concerns that he is or may have been incapacitated. In the absence of medical information, the Law Society argues that an assessment would provide significant assistance in making such a determination and how to proceed with ongoing investigations.

Misspell feudal and they're all over your ass. Glenn of course put up his usual brilliant defense;

[26] The Lawyer provided a 65-page unsworn statement supported by 50 exhibits. As well, he testified at some length.

[27] Mr. Bogue stated that he had always been polite and co-operative with the Law Society. He denied initiating any litigation based on bizarre conspiracy theories. Rather he asserts that he has taken a cogent, co-ordinated approach to bring new or novel approaches to his cases, and that this has greatly reduced litigation costs.

[28] Mr. Bogue stated that he had made certain jurisdictional arguments at the direction of specific clients who wished to make Canada a better place. He stressed that these arguments are not his theories and should not be taken as a reflection of his personal beliefs.

[29] Nevertheless, the Lawyer offered material to us in support of many of these positions, including newspaper reports, press releases, e-mails and excerpts from articles on a range of subjects including:

• how Pierre Trudeau turned us into debt slaves;

• why the whole banking system is a scam;

• how the Vatican Bank stands accused of the 1978 murder of Pope John Paul I;

• Saudi Arabian money-laundering; and

• Vatican complicity in genocide in fascist Croatia.

[30] The Lawyer suggested such arguments can be supported by experts. He asserted that the Law Society’s investigations to date in the complaints against him have not been thorough and provide no foundation for any of the conclusions being advanced at this motion.

[31] He challenged the expertise of the Law Society to comment on a range of subjects including his health. He noted that he has a Masters degree in History and has recognized knowledge in this area. As well, he has studied and written extensively on matters such as banking and international finance.

[32] The Lawyer provided affidavits and letters from clients speaking positively of his skills as their lawyer and his successful results. He provided documentation that he states confirms that he has successfully secured a significant 2016 arbitration judgment on behalf of a client thus demonstrating his unique competence as an advocate.

[33] Mr. Bogue testified that he had never been diagnosed or treated for mental illness. He asserted that there is no evidence to support any suggestion of incapacity. He acknowledged that one of his potential lawyers had indicated that an assessment could be helpful. However, he was not willing to agree to such as assessment at this time..

Having been at one of Glenn's hearings I can attest to this one;

[26] The Lawyer provided a 65-page unsworn statement supported by 50 exhibits. As well, he testified at some length.

This is what Glenn is facing;

[51] We make the following order:

1. Pursuant to s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, the Lawyer shall be examined by Dr. Hy Bloom for the purpose of determining:

a. whether the Lawyer is or has been incapacitated;

b. the extent of any incapacity and prognosis for recovery; and

c. any other issue that may assist in determining the issues in the application.

2. The Lawyer shall answer Dr. Bloom’s questions and co-operate with the examination process, including participating in any relevant medical or psychological testing as required by Dr. Bloom and providing Dr. Bloom with any requested information from health records or authorization to obtain information from the Lawyer’s health practitioners.

3. The Lawyer shall be examined at Dr. Bloom’s office in Toronto or, at Dr. Bloom’s discretion, at another medical centre or physician’s office in Toronto. The Lawyer must attend for up to three sessions of up to eight hours each.

4. In the event that Dr. Bloom would like to conduct more than three sessions, change the duration or location of the meetings, or consult with or obtain the assistance of another expert, then a motion may be brought in writing before this panel to vary this order, if the parties are unable to agree.

5. A copy of Dr. Bloom’s report shall be provided to the Lawyer and Law Society, following the examination process.

6. No costs are awarded on this motion.

So it doesn't look like Glenn will be back in court anytime soon.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue
2017 ONLSTH 215
http://canlii.ca/t/hnb5s

This is the Law Society Tribunal, a quasi-court that appears to be able to force Glenn to get his head shrunk, at least if he wants to continue practicing his own unique understanding of law. But what chance does he have with the Queen and Pope after him?

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/

[notorial dissent]

And the Law Society "thinks" he might need a Psych Eval?????? Cautious you Canadians. I think he's barking mad, but then what do I know.

[The Observer]

This is the Law Society Tribunal, a quasi-court that appears to be able to force Glenn to get his head shrunk, at least if he wants to continue practicing his own unique understanding of law.

Certainly sounds like a Canadian version of the Star Chamber to me. Just more methods of stomping the poor sovruns and Freemen out there, like a giant game of Whack-A-Mole. But if they successfully shrink Glenn's head, I doubt that it will mean that he practices law the way he used to.

[Burnaby49]

This is the Law Society Tribunal, a quasi-court that appears to be able to force Glenn to get his head shrunk, at least if he wants to continue practicing his own unique understanding of law.

Certainly sounds like a Canadian version of the Star Chamber to me. Just more methods of stomping the poor sovruns and Freemen out there, like a giant game of Whack-A-Mole. But if they successfully shrink Glenn's head, I doubt that it will mean that he practices law the way he used to.

Star Chamber? Please; the Upper Canada Law Society is one of the most caring, concerned organizations in Canada which probably means almost anywhere in the world with the possible exception of the the Nordic zone. They are currently in an uproar about a vitally necessary name change. They've been called the Law Society of Upper Canada since 1797 but now they've realized what a sexist, racist, or whatever "ist" name it actually is! Apparently, putting the word "Canada" in the name of a Canadian legal society is so offensive to sensitive types that they are changing it to one more "inclusive", The Law Society of Ontario.

The Law Society of Upper Canada will change its name because a majority of its elected benchers, 38-11, agreed with an internal report that the term for the former British colony is non-inclusive, offensive, elitist, out of date and out of touch.

Upper Canada was geographically much smaller than Ontario is today, and the term itself is “a non-inclusive phrase, which is also offensive to some,” and as an “anachronism,” the name is “inconsistent with the image the Law Society wishes to portray of a modern and inclusive regulator.”

Note that they apparently weren't responding to complaints but to their own masochistic agonized breast-beating. But that has turned into a raging battle with a faction that wants the name changed to The Ontario Law Society rather than the Law Society of Ontario. I've managed to procure a photo of the elected Benchers tasked with the momentous decision of picking between the two names;



They take their importance in the world very seriously. Apparently we are supposed to view them with a sense of wonder!

“But that gives us a teachable moment,” he wrote. “It gives us the chance to tell the story … of how the rule of law in English Canada was not plopped down fully formed from Mount Olympus but rather evolved in our own unique way. And it might be a source of wonder to those who might assume that all we do as lawyers is slavishly imitate what they do in England, that Ontario’s Law Society is actually older than the English one.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/law ... per-canada

They are so committed to equality, diversity and inclusion that they are requiring that all member abjectly grovel enthusiastically endorse the Society's leadership in these fields, both in public and private life, with mandatory written vows.

Earlier this fall, Ontario’s legal regulator, the Law Society of Upper Canada, notified its members — everyone permitted to practise law in Ontario — that they would be required “to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally.” The law society has said there would be no sanctions for any lawyer who refused to sign the pledge… for the first year.

The statement has proved incredibly controversial, although not because anyone (seemingly) takes issue with the values articulated in it. People are concerned, rather, that the law society has exceeded the limits of its own statutory jurisdiction, and trampled on lawyers’ constitutionally protected freedoms of conscience and expression. Surprising missteps for a body of lawyers!

Certainly, the law society — and professional bodies generally — has a responsibility to regulate the conduct of its members in the practice of their profession. But the statement appears to do more than this. First, it requires lawyers to conduct themselves in a certain way in their private affairs, which the law society has no business regulating. Second, it requires lawyers to not merely comply with law society rules, but to also affirm that they agree with them, which is a form of compelled speech.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view ... truck-down

Who would disagree with such noble goals? Those damn reactionary white men!

Toronto lawyer Renatta Austin has followed this issue closely and points to what she says is a misunderstanding "in terms of what the law society is actually doing here."

"When someone seeks to join the legal profession in Ontario, we're already required to make declarations when we're called to the bar about our values and how we will conduct ourselves in our professional and personal lives."

Austin argues that the statement of principles isn't about the Law Society "trying to control our thoughts and tell us what to believe."

"It's a statement of principles acknowledging existing obligations."

Upholding human rights laws is already required, Austin tells Tremonti, and says principles enshrined within human rights include diversity and inclusion.

"The resistance that we are getting from this is coming from, quite frankly, white males who may not experience the same kind of discrimination that some of us in the profession who are racialized, who are members of different minority groups, experience," Austin explains.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the- ... -1.4350233

The Law Society broke new ground in 2014 by barring fully capable new lawyers from practicing in Ontario by refusing to accredit the law school they graduated from because it supported religious beliefs abhorant to the menbers of the society. What are these abhorent unacceptable beliefs? Marriage and fidelity.

In a case pitting equality against religious freedom, the Law Society of Upper Canada has made the unprecedented decision to vote down a controversial evangelical Christian law school.

Society benchers (directors) voted 28-21 Thursday against accrediting B.C.’s Trinity Western University, thereby prohibiting graduates from applying to the Ontario bar. There was one abstention.

It marks the first time the Law Society has refused to accredit a school and the first time law societies across the country haven’t come to a consensus. Trinity Western was accredited by the Law Society of British Columbia.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/0 ... chool.html

There are two schools of opinions on this. One, the law society's, is that they are moral arbitrators who can ban lawyers for religious beliefs of which the society doesn't approve. The other is that they should be required to accept qualified lawyers with unblemished records who hold what are essentially mainstream, but not progressive, religious beliefs. This has generated controversy across Canada with some provincial societies accepting Trinity graduates and others refusing to admit them to the bar. But Ontario led the way. Lawsuits have gone either way with some provincial courts supporting the law societies others Trinity University. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to sort the whole mess out by accepting leave to appeal for the various provincial cases.

[Hercule Parrot]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/0 ... chool.html

There are two schools of opinions on this. One, the law society's, is that they are moral arbitrators who can ban lawyers for religious beliefs of which the society doesn't approve. The other is that they should be required to accept qualified lawyers with unblemished records who hold what are essentially mainstream, but not progressive, religious beliefs. This has generated controversy across Canada with some provincial societies accepting Trinity graduates and others refusing to admit them to the bar. But Ontario led the way. Lawsuits have gone either way with some provincial courts supporting the law societies others Trinity University. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to sort the whole mess out by accepting leave to appeal for the various provincial cases.

That's ridiculous. We're all in favour of social progress, but to bar qualified professionals from their trade on the grounds of religious belief is a step in the wrong direction. And they would never dare to bar entrants who had attended a Jewish or Muslim university, so this censorious bullying is reserved for Christians.

(I grind no axe here, I regard the concept of any 'God' as childlike nonsense. But it isn't fair to bend over backwards to accommodate the beliefs of every other religion whilst denigrating Christian values as uniquely oppressive.)

(apols if pushing the 'no religion' rule too far, but sharp-eyed Mods will note that I am only criticising the secular PC idiocy of the Law Society of Upper Canada. )

[Burnaby49]

apols if pushing the 'no religion' rule too far, but sharp-eyed Mods will note that I am only criticising the secular PC idiocy of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

As I did in posting it. This is a very important case, not just on religious freedom, but on how much regulatory bodies can impose their moral views on individuals and organizations with legitimate but differing views. If Trinity Western loses it means that fully qualified individuals who have graduated from an entirely legitimate qualified law school can be barred from practicing for reasons totally unrelated to their capabilities and personal merits. You might have noted in the newspaper article that British Columbia had approved Trinity Western's accreditation. They'd approved it, against their inclination, because they were told they were legally required to do so;

[35] On February 28, 2014, the Benchers determined that they would vote at a meeting scheduled for April 11, 2014 on a motion (the “April Motion”) stating:

Pursuant to Law Society Rule 2-27(4.1), the Benchers declare that, notwithstanding the preliminary approval granted to Trinity Western University on December 16, 2013 by the Federation of Law Societies’ Canadian Common Law Program Approval Committee, the proposed Faculty of Law at Trinity Western University is not an approved faculty of law.

[36] In preparation for the April 11, 2014 meeting, the LSBC sought and obtained an opinion on Rule 2-27(4.1) from Mr. Geoff Gomery, Q.C., a barrister and solicitor and member of the LSBC. In his opinion dated March 15, 2014, Mr. Gomery advised that “Rule 2-27(4.1) does not contemplate the Benchers disapproving a faculty of law... on a ground that is unrelated to the question of academic qualification”.

[37] On April 11, 2014, the Benchers considered the April Motion, and ultimately voted to defeat the motion. Following the vote, the President of the LSBC stated that the LSBC had “decided to approve” the academic qualifications of TWU graduates.

Well, they approved until they didn't. Pressure from their members resulted in the Law Society of British Columbia revoking the approval it had already given regardless of whatever their legal duties might be. It was, in my opinion, decided in an idiotic manner. The Benchers are a panel that judges on accreditation. It's their duty to do so according to the law. Instead they punted the issue to a vote of the members of the Law Society.

[44] The second motion (the “September Motion”) resolved to hold a referendum of LSBC members, to be “conducted as soon as possible”, on implementing the following resolution:

Resolved that the Benchers implement the resolution of the members passed at the special general meeting of the Law Society held on June 10, 2014, and declare that the proposed law school at Trinity Western University is not an approved faculty of law for the purpose of the Law Society's admissions program.

(the “Referendum Question”).

[45] The September Motion also stated the referendum results would be binding on and be implemented by the Benchers if at least one-third of LSBC members voted and two-thirds of members voted in favour of the resolution, and also stated that “[t]he Benchers hereby determine that implementation of the Resolution does not constitute a breach of their statutory duties, regardless of the results of the Referendum.”

[46] The Benchers passed the September Motion by a vote of 20-1. A third motion that would have delayed further action until the courts had ruled on matters pertaining to the proposed faculty of law was then withdrawn.

[47] The referendum was then held among LSBC members pursuant to LSBC Rule 1-37 (the “October Referendum”). The October Referendum was conducted by mail-in ballot throughout the month of October. The LSBC released the results of the October Referendum on October 30, 2014. 5,951 (74%) members of the LSBC voted in favour of the Referendum Question and 2,088 (26%) voted against it.

[48] At a meeting held on October 31, 2014, without any substantive debate or discussion, the Benchers treated the October Referendum as binding and voted 25-1, with four abstentions, to implement the SGM Resolution based solely on the results of the October Referendum (the “Decision”), reversing their earlier approval of the law school and refusing to approve TWU’s JD degrees pursuant to LSBC Rule 2-27(4.1).

So Trinity Western took them to court and won;

Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia
2015 BCSC 2326
http://canlii.ca/t/gmh9k

The government of Canada intervened on behalf of Trinity Western. Not because it supported their religious beliefs but because the refusal to accredit on reigious grounds was an important Constitutional issue;

[8] The Attorney General of Canada has intervened in these proceedings pursuant to the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68. The Attorney General of Canada argues that the LSBC’s decision, which declares that the proposed law school at TWU is not an approved faculty of law for the purposes of the LSBC’s admission program, is ultra vires the authority conferred to the LSBC under the LPA, and is unconstitutional because it unjustifiably infringes s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 [Charter].

The interveners supporting Trinity Western were;

[9] The following parties supporting the petitioners were granted intervener standing in these proceedings, and permitted to file written submissions:

• Attorney General of Canada;
• The Association For Reformed Political Action (“ARPA”) Canada;
• Canadian Council of Christian Charities;
• Christian Legal Fellowship;
• Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;
• Christian Higher Education Canada;
• Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms;
• The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver;
• The Catholic Civil Rights League;
• The Faith and Freedom Alliance; and
• Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada.

The interveners supporting the law Society were;

[19] The following parties supporting the respondent were granted intervener standing in these proceedings, and permitted to file written submissions:

• West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund;
• OUTlaws UBC;
• OUTlaws UVIC;
• OUTlaws TRU; and
• Qmunity.

[20] West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (“West Coast LEAF”) was created in 1985 and is an incorporated not-for-profit society in British Columbia. West Coast LEAF’s mission is to achieve equality by changing historic patterns of systemic discrimination against women through three main program areas: equality rights litigation, law reform, and public legal education.

[21] OUTlaws Canada describes itself as an organization of queer law student associations in Canada. There are OUTlaws chapters at 15 Canadian law schools, including at the University of British Columbia (“UBC”), the University of Victoria (“UVic”), and Thompson Rivers University (“TRU”). OUTlaws chapters hold events at law schools to promote a supportive community for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and queer (“LGBTQ”) law students and awareness of LGBTQ issues.

[22] Qmunity was founded in 1979 and is a charitable, not-for-profit, community-based organization. Its mission is “to make queer lives better by proactively supporting [their] peers and strengthening [their] communities as [they] move equality forward.

The Law Society has not accepted this defeat and is part of the group heading to the Supreme Court.

The other Law Societies who declined to accept Trinity Western graduates were;

[67] The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (“NSBS”) and the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) each determined that they would not recognize graduates of TWU’s proposed faculty of law for the purposes of admission to the bars of Nova Scotia or Ontario. TWU sought judicial review of both law societies’ decisions.

The Nova Scotia Barrister's Society got the shit kicked out of them in this decision, precisely to point;

Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society
2015 NSSC 25
http://canlii.ca/t/gg386

c. Proportionate Effects

[268] On one side is a statement of principle. On the other a right to religious expression that is directly impaired.

[269] The action by the NSBS does nothing to prevent a single person in Nova Scotia from being the subject of any discriminatory action in relation to the legal profession. No lawyer will be less likely to discriminate and no person will be less likely to be discriminated against because of it. There is no evidence to support the contention that reasonably informed LGBT people will be more or less likely to find the profession a welcoming one as a result of this particular action. It will not prevent the NSBS from being perceived as hypocritical. It will do nothing whatsoever to improve the status of LGBT people in this province.

[270] The impact on the religious expression would be to require it to be undertaken in a way that significantly diminishes its value. TWU’s character as an Evangelical Christian University where behavioural standards are required to be observed by everyone would be changed. Replacing a mandatory code with a voluntary one would mean that students who wanted to be assured that they could study in a strictly Evangelical Christian environment would have to look elsewhere if they want to practice in Nova Scotia. That impact is direct.

The NSBS resolution and regulation infringe on the freedom of religion of TWU and its students in a way that cannot be justified. The rights, Charter values and regulatory objectives were reasonably balanced within a margin of appreciation.

8. Conclusion

[271] For many people in a secular society religious freedom is worse than inconsequential. It actually gets in the way. It’s the dead hand of the superstitious past reaching out to restrain more important secular values like equality from becoming real equality. A more progressive society, on that view, would not permit any incursions by religion into public life or would at least limit those incursions to those by religions that have belief systems and practices that are more consonant with mainstream morality. The discomforting truth is that religions with views that many Canadians find incomprehensible or offensive abound in a liberal and multicultural society. The law protects them and must carve out a place not only where they can exist but flourish.

[272] The NSBS position speaks on one level about equality as a value. It is a reflection of a moral matrix that privileges that value. It speaks in the language of that value. And it makes it entirely possible to say, “A law school that discriminates is just wrong. There is nothing to debate here.”

[273] The other moral matrix speaks in the language of sanctity and privileges that value. It makes it entirely possible to say, “Homosexual acts are a sin. That is the word of God. There is nothing to debate here.”

[274] Both are moral judgments. It has been said that morality binds groups together. It also blinds.

[127] The values of the other are easily seen as merely prejudices.

[275] Tolerance, the ambiguous and paradoxical concept that it is, acts not so much as a boundary as the synthesis of the dialectic of competing values referenced by Chief Justice McLachlin. Unless tolerance engages the incomprehensible, the contemptible or the detestable, it is nothing much more than indifference. It isn’t a line. It’s a process. And it’s one that invites and almost requires a level of discomfort.

[276] If the parties are unable to agree on costs I will hear them on that matter.

However the Ontario provincial court took the oposite position and agreed that the Law Society of Upper Canada could refuse to accredit Trinity Western graduates for no better reason than that they are morally offended.

Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada
2015 ONSC 4250
http://canlii.ca/t/gjxpw

This created an intolerable situation where various courts were making conflicting decisions on exactly the same legal issue. Everybody made leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court granted leave. It will be heard in a few weeks.

1. The hearing of these appeals, previously set down for one day, will occupy two days. The hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 30 and December 1, 2017.

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info ... ?cas=37318

Everybody and their dog wants to be an intervener;

Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, Wa, UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Council of Christian Charities; the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada; the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; the Canadian Association of University Teachers; The Advocates’ Society; the Canadian Bar Association; the Christian Legal Fellowship; the Law Students’ Society of Ontario; the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada; the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Christian Higher Education Canada (jointly); the International Coalition of Professors of Law; the British Columbia Humanist Association; the Canadian Secular Alliance; the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust; the Faith, Fealty & Creed Society; the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Faith and Freedom Alliance (jointly); the World Sikh Organization of Canada; and the National Coalition of Catholic School Trustees' for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

AND UPON APPLICATIONS by the Lesbians Gays Bisexuals and Trans People of the University of Toronto (LGBTOUT); the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario); the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the United Church of Canada; and the Start Proud and OUTlaws (jointly) for leave to intervene in the appeal Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant v. Law Society of Upper Canada (37209);

AND UPON APPLICATIONS by the West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the BC LGBTQ Coalition for leave to intervene in the appeal Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant (37318);

AND UPON APPLICATION by the Lawyers’ Right Watch Canada for an extension of time to serve their motion for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

It's going to be an interesting, and important, decision. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will decide in Trinity's favour.

[Hercule Parrot]

It's going to be an interesting, and important, decision. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will decide in Trinity's favour.

Despite being a belligerent opponent of Deism, I hope that is the outcome. It is an astounding contempt of the Canadian Charter to deliberately impose religious discrimination. It surely cannot stand without tearing all rational meaning from the Charter.

My alma mater (Ormskirk Polytechnic & Welding School) served meat in its canteen, so perhaps vegetarians can now have me struck off by my professional regulator? I didn't eat the meat, in fact I never visited the canteen, but my moral character is nonetheless irreparably stained. I am unfit to practice my vocation as an Avine Orthodontist (to be fair, I wasn't getting a lot of work).

Mutter, rant, SMH etc....

[ArthurWankspittle]

Do you TIG or MIG avine orthodontic braces?

[Burnaby49]

Despite being a belligerent opponent of Deism, I hope that is the outcome. It is an astounding contempt of the Canadian Charter to deliberately impose religious discrimination. It surely cannot stand without tearing all rational meaning from the Charter.

Which is probably why the Canadian government was an intervener on behalf of Trinity. They couldn't care less about the religion but the principle is important.

[Burnaby49]

Enough about Trinity Western and its problems. We'll wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to sort that one out. Time to get back to Glenn and his fight to retain his right to be a lawyer. His next hearing is just a few weeks away on January 11th. As I reported previously these were his initial arguments against being disbarred.

[26] The Lawyer provided a 65-page unsworn statement supported by 50 exhibits. As well, he testified at some length.

[27] Mr. Bogue stated that he had always been polite and co-operative with the Law Society. He denied initiating any litigation based on bizarre conspiracy theories. Rather he asserts that he has taken a cogent, co-ordinated approach to bring new or novel approaches to his cases, and that this has greatly reduced litigation costs.

[28] Mr. Bogue stated that he had made certain jurisdictional arguments at the direction of specific clients who wished to make Canada a better place. He stressed that these arguments are not his theories and should not be taken as a reflection of his personal beliefs.

[29] Nevertheless, the Lawyer offered material to us in support of many of these positions, including newspaper reports, press releases, e-mails and excerpts from articles on a range of subjects including:

• how Pierre Trudeau turned us into debt slaves;

• why the whole banking system is a scam;

• how the Vatican Bank stands accused of the 1978 murder of Pope John Paul I;

• Saudi Arabian money-laundering; and

• Vatican complicity in genocide in fascist Croatia.

[30] The Lawyer suggested such arguments can be supported by experts. He asserted that the Law Society’s investigations to date in the complaints against him have not been thorough and provide no foundation for any of the conclusions being advanced at this motion.

[31] He challenged the expertise of the Law Society to comment on a range of subjects including his health. He noted that he has a Masters degree in History and has recognized knowledge in this area. As well, he has studied and written extensively on matters such as banking and international finance.

[32] The Lawyer provided affidavits and letters from clients speaking positively of his skills as their lawyer and his successful results. He provided documentation that he states confirms that he has successfully secured a significant 2016 arbitration judgment on behalf of a client thus demonstrating his unique competence as an advocate.

[33] Mr. Bogue testified that he had never been diagnosed or treated for mental illness. He asserted that there is no evidence to support any suggestion of incapacity. He acknowledged that one of his potential lawyers had indicated that an assessment could be helpful. However, he was not willing to agree to such as assessment at this time.

Well Glenn's come to his senses and given up on all this legal tomfoolery. He's thrown those losers arguments aside and has finally come up with a stunning argument that is going to rock the Ontario legal world back on its heels! His disbarment hearings have to be run by a fictitious Indigenous Tribunal headed by a self-appointed Indigenous Clan Mother!

Here's his Notice of Motion demanding a legitimate Tribunal;

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/Current%2 ... %20MT).pdf

The Motion is for:

1. An order appointing an Indigenous Chair to oversee an Indigenous Tribunal comprised of members of the Indigenous Community. The Indigenous Chair should be a Clan Mother, and the three member Tribunal should be an Indigenous person from the Status community, the Non-Status community, and the Metis community appointed by the Clan Mother.

2. An Order transferring this file, including this Motion, to the Indigenous Tribunal.

3. An Order setting aside the Interlocutory suspension of Mr. Bogue, as the suspension was delivered by a Non-Indigenous Tribunal, after Canada had adopted UNIDRIP and after Canada had heard the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

And who might the Clan Mother be? Well fortunately Glenn has a self-appointed Clan Mother of a self-appointed aboriginal band just waiting in the wings! He partnered with Clan Mother Ikway Michine of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation when he represented Debbie Anderson in her tax evasion and fraud trial. The Clan Mother was ready to take over jurisdiction for Debbie but was stopped by the Supreme Court of British Columbia's obsessive concerns about hogging jurisdiction for itself regardless of the justice of Glenn's arguments about tribal healing circles. But, no doubt, she's willing to help Glenn yet again.

I've given extensive details about Clan Mother Michine here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747#p244255

I'll admit that, for a while, I actually thought that Glenn was in jeopardy of losing his license to practice law. But he's shown that with his back to the wall he's the master of the situation and is in control again. Once he gets his Indigenous Tribunal set up there's no way he's going to lose this. Now we're just waiting for the Law Society Tribunal to pass jurisdiction over to the Indigenous Tribunal and it's done.

However Glenn's a man of action. He can't just sit around waiting for his Indigenous Tribunal to exonerate him. So he did a Christmas Special for Aquarian Radio!

http://aquarianradio.com/2017/12/22/jes ... ex-lessin/

It asks such vital questions as;

Is Jesus an Anunnaki?
If so, which one?
Is Christ a higher dimensional being who incarnates on many planets to assist the evolution of consciousness?
Is Christ a separate being or are all emanations (like Buddha and Krishna) of a higher level soul or Source?
What was the purpose of Jesus’s incarnation on Earth?
Did he accomplish his purpose?
Is he still alive?
Does he walk among us?
Who are the modern incarnations or fractals inhabiting Anunnaki avatars?
Are “alive” at this time on Earth?
What’s the difference between being alive or being dead?
What is the “Halls of Amenti” and where is it?
Who’s picture is on the Sphinx?
Who rules the planet at this time?
Who left after the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Is Jesus Enki? Thoth?
Who’s Mary?
Why do the Mormons depict Jesus as a giant?

If you're like that ignorant buffoon Burnaby49 you have no idea what an Anunnaki even is. But don't despair, the internet is full of information about them. The place for one-stop shopping on the topic is Annunaki.org.

http://www.annunaki.org/what-do-the-anu ... ith-earth/

There seems to be a bit of dispute about their name. Glenn has the second and third 'n' doubled while Annunaki.org, who you think would know, doubles the first and second 'n'. But then again Annunaki.org seems very complacent about that double n, promiscuously placing it wherever it wants in the name throughout the entire website. It turns out that the An(nn)unn(n)aki (I'm not taking sides in that hornet's nest) created humanity because they were worthless bone-idle lazy layabouts and needed slaves;

The summary version is this: The theory goes that the ancient deities of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology—the Anunnaki—actually did exist. But they were not gods—they were ancient aliens visiting from a planet called Nibiru. As the ancients lacked the language to talk about other planets and species, they referred to these beings as deities.

Now, the Anunnaki in ancient lore played many roles in relation to humanity and the greater universe. But one of those roles was as our creators.

Essentially, maintaining creation was a lot of work. The gods grew fatigued with all the chores of existence, and some of them went on strike. Obviously this would have been a disaster, so a solution had to be found.

One of the Anunnaki, Enlil, said he could end the strike—but in turn, the gods must name him their supreme ruler. So he came up with the idea of creating a labor force of inferior beings. Apparently Enlil either could not do this on his own or did not want to, so he had a chat with Antu, the mother of his half-brother Enki. Enki was sleeping through this entire affair, and apparently was highly suggestible in this state.

"His mother whispered the following suggestion in his head, given to her by Enlil:
Oh my son, arise from thy bed, from thy (slumber), work what is wise, Fashion servants for the Gods, may they produce their (bread?)."

Waking up, Enki thought he’d had a brilliant idea, and suggested to the gods that they create a race of slaves. Everyone agreed, so he got busy with a mixut ore fclay and blood from a slaughtered god. Working this together, he managed to create the first human beings.

You can read more about Enki, Enlil, and the story of their interactions with humanity here.

I think a cautionary note is due here however. It is way too easy to essentialize all Anunnaki as evil, cold, heartless, sadistic creatures. But Anunnaki are individuals, just like us. Some of them have different motives and personalities. Enki was actually reasonably friendly and benevolent toward humanity, even going so far as to save the human race from Enlil’s flood. So if the Anunnaki return, we can expect some complexity in their interactions with us.

Another theory has them so incompetent they couldn't find their own asses if their hands were glued to them;

An examination of mythology gives us a pretty good idea of the attitude of the Anunnaki toward humanity, but none of it answers the basic question, “Why Earth? Why here?” We know they needed labor, but what for?

Those who believe the Anunnaki may have been alien visitors have various theories, but the most prominent one was proposed by writer Zecharia Sitchin, one of the most well-known ancient astronaut theorists. According to him, the Anunnaki came to earth to mine gold, but not for the reasons that we typically do.

They didn’t need it to craft fine jewelry—they needed it to save their planet, Nibiru.

In his 1976 book The Twelfth Planet, Sitchin wrote:

On Nibiru — ‘Planet X’ of our Solar System – the problem was the opposite one: Loss of internally generated heat due to a dwindling atmosphere, brought about by natural causes and nuclear wars. Nibiru’s scientists, I wrote, concluded that the only way to save life on their planet was to create a shield of gold particles in their upper atmosphere.”

If you explore Sitchin’s works, you will find a complex timeline of events surrounding the mining process before the Anunnaki end up abandoning the planet. Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, a complex drama plays out with many different characters—who we know today as Sumerian and Egyptian deities. In reality, most of these players were likely Anunnaki mining management.

This having been said, the Anunnaki did seem to be curiously inefficient. You would think an advanced race could quickly determine the location of gold and extract it with ease from the earth. But apparently it took hundreds of thousands of years—and they obviously left a fair amount behind.

And, as I noted in a prior posting, Glenn thinks they engaged in a little R&R hanky-panky while they were here;

It should be mentioned as well that it seems some Anunnaki may have mated with human women during this time, producing hybrid offspring. You can read more about this on our feature on the Nephilim.

In other words the Ann(n)un(nn)aki are a perfect subject of discussion for Glenn as he awaits the order setting aside his interlocutory suspension.

[BoomerSooner17]

[32] The Lawyer provided affidavits and letters from clients speaking positively of his skills as their lawyer and his successful results. He provided documentation that he states confirms that he has successfully secured a significant 2016 arbitration judgment on behalf of a client thus demonstrating his unique competence as an advocate.

Not to be picking Pedulus humanus capitus here, but can't the judge simply look up all of these "successful results" (assuming, of course, that Glenn provided enough info to find them - and we've seen, repeatedly, how reliable the sov'runs are at providing enough information to look up their "successful" court cases) in the Canadian legal database thingy? It seems that might put a few holes in his argument.

[Burnaby49]

[32] The Lawyer provided affidavits and letters from clients speaking positively of his skills as their lawyer and his successful results. He provided documentation that he states confirms that he has successfully secured a significant 2016 arbitration judgment on behalf of a client thus demonstrating his unique competence as an advocate.

Not to be picking Pedulus humanus capitus here, but can't the judge simply look up all of these "successful results" (assuming, of course, that Glenn provided enough info to find them - and we've seen, repeatedly, how reliable the sov'runs are at providing enough information to look up their "successful" court cases) in the Canadian legal database thingy? It seems that might put a few holes in his argument.

This is the decision the quote is from;

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue
2017 ONLSTH 215
http://canlii.ca/t/hnb5s

This was held in front of the Law Society Tribunal, Hearing Division. The hearing was in respect to this issue;

Summary:

BOGUE – Procedure – Capacity – Medical Examination – There was evidence that the Lawyer had acted in a number of legal proceedings in which he raised a series of bizarre, irrational and unsupportable arguments that were focused on a belief in elaborate historical conspiracies – Even if they were raised at his clients’ directions, as an officer of the court he had a duty not to advance arguments that were out of touch with reality – His arguments had been repeatedly rejected by judges – A panel of this Tribunal had concluded that it was necessary to suspend the Lawyer’s licence on an interim interlocutory basis – This raised reasonable grounds that the Lawyer may be, or may have been, incapacitated – An independent medical examination would assist in determining whether his conduct arose from delusion or something else.

Note the comment "his arguments have been repeatedly rejected by judges". The Tribunal was well aware that Glenn has never won a case and that the clients that provided him affidavits are as batshit crazy as he is but that was irrelevant to the reason for the hearing. The hearing wasn't about his success record, it was about his mental state and his capacity to represent clients. All that paragraph 32 is doing is giving his arguments, not agreeing with them. And, as always, Glenn's arguments are irrelevant to the issue being considered.

The hearing was presenting both sides before rending its decision. And that decision was that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that Glenn is mentally incapacitated and that professional psychiatric advice was needed to determine this;

[40] It is the Law Society’s position that the Lawyer’s persistent pursuit of patently irrational arguments in the face of multiple adverse rulings raises reasonable concerns with respect to both the Lawyer’s judgment and capacity. We agree.


[41] On the face of it, this raises reasonable grounds that the Lawyer may be or may have been incapacitated. Further, in the absence of any existing medical information, it is not possible to make a determination on the evidence gathered to date whether the conduct in question might arise from delusion or something else. An independent medical examination would provide significant assistance in this regard.

[51] We make the following order:

1. Pursuant to s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, the Lawyer shall be examined by Dr. Hy Bloom for the purpose of determining:
a. whether the Lawyer is or has been incapacitated;
b. the extent of any incapacity and prognosis for recovery; and
c. any other issue that may assist in determining the issues in the application.

2. The Lawyer shall answer Dr. Bloom’s questions and co-operate with the examination process, including participating in any relevant medical or psychological testing as required by Dr. Bloom and providing Dr. Bloom with any requested information from health records or authorization to obtain information from the Lawyer’s health practitioners.

3. The Lawyer shall be examined at Dr. Bloom’s office in Toronto or, at Dr. Bloom’s discretion, at another medical centre or physician’s office in Toronto. The Lawyer must attend for up to three sessions of up to eight hours each.

4. In the event that Dr. Bloom would like to conduct more than three sessions, change the duration or location of the meetings, or consult with or obtain the assistance of another expert, then a motion may be brought in writing before this panel to vary this order, if the parties are unable to agree.

5. A copy of Dr. Bloom’s report shall be provided to the Lawyer and Law Society, following the examination process.

There is no available information as to whether Bogue went through with the psychiatric exam. I'm assuming not but instead tried yet another totally doomed argument so bizarre that it tends to prove the case that he is actually incapacitated. A made up Tribunal headed by a self-appointed Clan Mother of a non-existant aboriginal tribe? Glenn would have to be delusional to think that the Tribunal would agree to that but I see no evidence that Glenn himself doesn't have complete faith in it. He's been obsessed with aboriginal issues for years. If you read the Sir Miracle discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11032

You'll see that Glenn was trying equivalent tactics two years ago. He's had no success at all but he's still beating his head against the same wall. Einstein purportedly said that insanity was "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". While I'm guessing the quote is spurious it still fits Glenn's behaviour perfectly.

On March 8, 2016 I wrote in the Sir Miracle discussion;

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.

Glenn's been riding that train for the better part of two years but it's over. I see no chance of his keeping his license to practice law. The January hearing might be the end of it but I doubt it. The Law Society's concerns about Glenn's mental state are quite genuine so they might handle him with kid gloves for a while since he can't practice law anyhow. I can attest that he honoured the interlocutory order to stop practicing since it was done at a hearing I was attending. He immediately reclused himself from Debbie Anderson's case as soon as he got the order. So I'm assuming that he's continuing to honour it.

[notorial dissent]

Right round the bend.

[Burnaby49]

Glenn's Krazy Komedy Kapers Kontinue!

It's been my observation that the Upper Canada Law Society eagerly, voluntarily, chooses to adhere to the demands of the multitude of human rights organizations regarding racism, sexism, the entire panoply of human rights "isms", in their attempt to be "inclusive". As I wrote in a prior posting;

Star Chamber? Please; the Upper Canada Law Society is one of the most caring, concerned organizations in Canada which probably means almost anywhere in the world with the possible exception of the Nordic zone. They are currently in an uproar about a vitally necessary name change. They've been called the Law Society of Upper Canada since 1797 but now they've realized what a sexist, racist, or whatever "ist" name it actually is! Apparently, putting the word "Canada" in the name of a Canadian legal society is so offensive to sensitive types that they are changing it to one more "inclusive", The Law Society of Ontario.

Note that they apparently weren't responding to complaints but to their own masochistic agonized breast-beating. But that has turned into a raging battle with a faction that wants the name changed to The Ontario Law Society rather than the Law Society of Ontario.

But they've outdone themselves with Glenn's latest hearing regarding his possible disbarment. Obsequious pandering to the demands of the fake leaders of a fake aboriginal band!

[1] Rocco Galati (for the panel):– The panel is unanimous in its view that the motion should be dismissed. Firstly, as a matter of observation, the chair of this panel was seated prior to the hearing ceremony, then greeted the Clan Mother and Grand Chief at the door and allowed the performance of the ceremony and the presentation of the gifts. We fully observed as well that she remained standing throughout.

This obviously refers to Clan Mother Ikway Michine of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation and her husband Chief Zane Bell bestowing their presence at one of Glenn's hearings and being treated like royalty. I've done an extensive review of our royal pair here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747#p244255

The Chair greeting them at the door like a restaurant head-waiter! Everybody watching in rapt fascination as they went through a native greeting ceremony in the hearing chamber! The Chair showing her respect by standing throughout! But it wasn't enough for Glenn. The motion referred to was a motion of recusal because the Panel Chair didn't grovel enough to satisfy Glenn so she must be bias against him. This is the entire decision;

Appearances:
Joshua Elcombe, for the Applicant
Respondent, self-represented

Summary:
BOGUE – Procedure – Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – The Lawyer’s motion, for the panel chair to recuse herself, was dismissed.

ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION
FOR RECUSAL OF THE PANEL CHAIR

[1] Rocco Galati (for the panel):– The panel is unanimous in its view that the motion should be dismissed. Firstly, as a matter of observation, the chair of this panel was seated prior to the hearing ceremony, then greeted the Clan Mother and Grand Chief at the door and allowed the performance of the ceremony and the presentation of the gifts. We fully observed as well that she remained standing throughout.

[2] Secondly, regarding the chair's ruling with respect to the parameters of the viva voce witness, there was nothing in the chair’s conduct, either in what she said or how she said it, which could indicate to any objective observer any reasonable apprehension of bias.

[3] Moreover, the ruling was made for the purpose of ensuring that the evidence of the proposed witness was relevant to the narrow and circumscribed issues before the panel today. We are in agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada's submissions that the legal test [for whether the conduct of the hearing panel raised a reasonable apprehension of bias] has not been met, as set out in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Sultan, 2017 ONLSTA 9 (CanLII), relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 SCR 369, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC). Therefore, the motion is dismissed.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue
2018 ONLSTH 13
http://canlii.ca/t/hq5mm

I'm guessing that Glenn wanted the panel to allow a witness, perhaps Clan Mother Michine, to babble on about something or another totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. He's obsessed with aboriginal issue so it probably related to that. As I wrote in a prior Bogue posting;

Well Glenn's come to his senses and given up on all this legal tomfoolery. He's thrown those losers arguments aside and has finally come up with a stunning argument that is going to rock the Ontario legal world back on its heels! His disbarment hearings have to be run by a fictitious Indigenous Tribunal headed by a self-appointed Indigenous Clan Mother!

Here's his Notice of Motion demanding a legitimate Tribunal;

The Motion is for:

1. An order appointing an Indigenous Chair to oversee an Indigenous Tribunal comprised of members of the Indigenous Community. The Indigenous Chair should be a Clan Mother, and the three member Tribunal should be an Indigenous person from the Status community, the Non-Status community, and the Metis community appointed by the Clan Mother.

2. An Order transferring this file, including this Motion, to the Indigenous Tribunal.

3. An Order setting aside the Interlocutory suspension of Mr. Bogue, as the suspension was delivered by a Non-Indigenous Tribunal, after Canada had adopted UNIDRIP and after Canada had heard the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

This hearing was probably something relating to that nonsense. A motion for recusal is Glenn's absolute bedrock legal tactic, one he pulled out of his pocket at virtually every case when things went against him. Which they did at every case he was involved in. He did it during Debbie Anderson's tax evasion trial when he tried to make an interlocutory appeal while the trial was still in session. But before addressing the issue at appeal Glenn demanded that a member of the three judge bench recluse himself because of claimed bias against Debbie relating to a judgment he'd made years ago which had absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. I've reviewed a huge amount of Glenn's past judicial history and recusal requests pop up like dandelions in my yard. This one failed as all of his past recusal motions have failed. So, slowly, the end of his disbarment proceedings inches closer.

And, as a bonus, note the name of the individual who wrote for the panel. Our own Rocco Galati! The lawyer whose greatest case, the lawsuit that was going to break the Bank of Canada's monopoly on fiscal policy and bestow free money on all Canadians, failed because he couldn't cobble together a Statement of Claim comprehensible to the Federal Court of Canada. You can read about that disaster here;

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada,
2016 FC 147
http://canlii.ca/t/gnfr0

You can read about Rocco here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10450

I sat through months of trial hearings with Michael Millar and Keith Lawson endlessly droning away but when two of my favorite Quatloos subjects are in the same hearing but on opposite sides I'm not there. Life is unfair. I'd have loved to have seen that greeting ceremony.

[Burnaby49]

Support attorney Glenn Bogue in his fight against the genocide of First Nations

IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE , WE ASK GLENN HOW WE CAN BEST SUPPORT HIM IN PROTECTING OUR FIRST AND GREATEST NATURAL RESOURCE, OUR CHILDREN !

In accordance to international laws and justice it is IMPERATIVE that Canada's Law Society immediately restore Glenn Bogue's right to practice law and represent our demonstrated Cultural Genocide case currently on hold before the Supreme Court and to do so without punitive recourse!

No, that's not me finally seeing the light and realizing how imperative it is that Glenn be allowed to continue his battle for First Nation rights. Glenn's started a change.org petition to put pressure on the Law Society to allow him to continue practicing as a lawyer.

https://www.change.org/p/paul-b-schabas ... st-nations

To be fair change.org doesn't record Glenn as having started it, somebody called Sandra Isaacs is listed as the instigator. The only Sandra Isaacs I could find that seemed a potential is this woman;

http://www.timescolonist.com/university ... 1.23299507

So far 177 signatures in a week. No idea if that's great or terrible although I'd lean towards terrible. However the Benchers at the Upper Canada Law Society seem so spineless that it's quite possible that even a slight push from a few people who claim First Nations backgrounds might send them into a tizzy of apologies for their participating in cultural genocide by trying to remove Glenn.

So here's my comment about Glenn's involvement in representing "our demonstrated Cultural Genocide case currently on hold before the Supreme Court". I don't doubt Glenn's sincerity, he seems committed to aboriginal rights. However he's demonstrated a complete inability to win a case, any case, as a lawyer. His brief legal history in Canada is one of total absolute failure. I'm not aware of any case on the issue currently before the Supreme Court of Canada but if there is one Glenn isn't the lawyer to argue it. His first step would be demand that the entire Supreme Court recuse itself and be replaced by aboriginal Clan Mothers. And it would go downhill from there.

In other Glenn news his disbarment proceedings move fitfully forward. I checked the Law Society Tribunal page. It indicates Glenn has a hearing on June 5, 2018.

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/Pages/Mainpage.aspx#133

but I'm confused as to what's going on. The entry says Glenn is the applicant, there is a notice of motion filed Nov. 30, 2017 in play, and it attached this document.

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/Current%2 ... %20MT).pdf

This looks like the application the tribunal rejected in:

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue,
2018 ONLSTH 46
http://canlii.ca/t/hrgfm

Is Glenn re-arguing this idiotic application? Is this hearing mislabeled and they're finally shutting him down? No idea.

[notorial dissent]

Glenn really docs have reality issues doesn't he?? Although he is at least consistent, which is at least something I suppose. I am curious as to what "on hold" action he thinks is pending at the Supreme Court? Maybe now he thinks dismissed means on "hold" at least all I can see.

[Burnaby49]

I was wrong, terribly wrong, when I wrote this;

So here's my comment about Glenn's involvement in representing "our demonstrated Cultural Genocide case currently on hold before the Supreme Court". I don't doubt Glenn's sincerity, he seems committed to aboriginal rights. However he's demonstrated a complete inability to win a case, any case, as a lawyer. His brief legal history in Canada is one of total absolute failure. I'm not aware of any case on the issue currently before the Supreme Court of Canada but if there is one Glenn isn't the lawyer to argue it. His first step would be demand that the entire Supreme Court recuse itself and be replaced by aboriginal Clan Mothers. And it would go downhill from there.

In response to this;

In accordance to international laws and justice it is IMPERATIVE that Canada's Law Society immediately restore Glenn Bogue's right to practice law and represent our demonstrated Cultural Genocide case currently on hold before the Supreme Court and to do so without punitive recourse!

After rethinking the issue I'm man enough to admit that I was grievously in error by saying that Glenn isn't a fit lawyer to act on behalf of the appellants in their case at the Supreme Court of Canada. After careful consideration I think that he's actually the perfect lawyer for the job!

First a few words about the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). It is the final arbitrator of law in Canada, the last resort for a losing appellant to get redress. It serves the same function as the Supreme Court of the United States and whatever decaying antiquity determines final appeals in Britain. Appellants to the SCC must have exhausted every other legal recourse before approaching the Supreme Court. So, in an example from my specialty, tax cases, an appellant must have won or lost at the Tax Court of Canada and then lost an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal. The SCC chooses which appeals it accepts for hearing and the vast majority of Leave to Appeal requests are denied.

This brings us to Glenn and "our demonstrated Cultural Genocide case currently on hold before the Supreme Court". Apparently the appellants consider Glenn to be absolutely necessary as the litigator representing them at the SCC. But no appellants in their right minds who have a case where Leave to Appeal has been granted would want a total loser like Glenn Bogue within a thousand mile radius of the hearing. If leave had been granted for this case there wouldn't be any difficulty finding a capable lawyer willing to undertake it because a SCC appeal on any First Nations issue would be swamped with pro bono offers. So why is Glenn so important?

I'm not aware of any "demonstrated Cultural Genocide case" that has been granted Leave to Appeal by the SCC. Such cases are important enough that they become national news and I follow the news reports of pending SCC cases. So I'd say it's certain that the appellants in this case, whatever it is, haven't yet filed for Leave to Appeal. So back to the question; why Glenn? This is probably one of Glenn's cases that's been lost, disastrously, at trial (in other words any of Glenn's cases) and Glenn's clients can't find a competent lawyer willing to file for Leave to Appeal on their behalf. Any capable lawyer would refuse to support any of the demented arguments that Glenn has made at any of his trials that I've reviewed and you can't appeal to the SCC on new arguments. Glenn is willing to do it but can't because he's currently barred from practicing law. Hence the change.org petition to get Glenn back in the game. You can tell the importance of this historic paradigm-changing case by the fact that the petition has only 143 signatures.

So which Glenn Bogue case is it? I'm going to make a wild guess. The petition talks about Cultural Genocide, opposition to an oil pipeline, accusations of domestic terrorism, the Canadian Child Welfare System in Calgary, and Mohawk children. Could it be this case that I've already discussed on Quatloos that involves claims of Cultural Genocide, opposition to an oil pipeline, accusations of domestic terrorism, the Canadian Child Welfare System in Calgary, and Mohawk children along with a supertanker load of prime Glenn crazy?

http://www.mediafire.com/file/vohd0hvws ... ned%29.pdf

Discussion here;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 32#p223963

If my hypothesis is correct Glenn is the perfect choice to carry this forward. It's an appeal from possibly the most demented of all of Glenn's cases and any Leave to Appeal request is unquestionably DOA. Who best to make that doomed request than the lawyer who lost the original case and who's never won any case? He was probably working away on the leave application when the Law Society of Upper Canada cut off his right to practice law.

[grixit]

There are plenty of situations involving indians in Canada. One of them has to do with abuse and murder of poor women on the reservations. Apparently there's a backlog of cases. Some claim the authorities just don't care, others that there aren't sufficient resources being allocated. Bogue's antics are not harmless, they risk trivializing these real victims.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I am puzzled how any lawyer, no matter how incompetent, can have no wins at all.
Some years ago, during jury service, we aquitted one defendant, not because the defence was any good but necause the prosecution was worse. In another case the prosecution could have sent in a Bogue because the defense had nothing to work with since even the defendant seemed happy to be guilty.

It is always a win for someone.