Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Vol. II Criminal Complaint submitted to Canadian Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould v B.C. lawyers Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis (BMO Bank), M. Kleisinger (LSBC); BC Justices Elaine Fenlon - Chris Hinkson (affidavit)-cont-
  May 26, 2016

Commentary
89. That I verily believe that all orders which followed the [unlawful] ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION of May 31, 2013 (for May 9, 2013), including: (a) the order Nisi, (b) conduct of sale, (c) vacant possession, all form part of an intended unlawful conduct conspiracy or, alternatively, malfeasance, misfeasance (nonfeasance) on the part of numerous members of the Law Society of British Columbia, Justices of the BC Supreme Court appointed by the Governor General of Canada with affirmation by the Privy Council and Cabinet from recommendation made by BC Attorney General and group of vetting officers.
90. That I attended to 'desk 210' at Vancouver Courthouse Feb 22, 2016 at or about 11:42 PM to obtain notes relating to the hearing of foreclosure matter H130330 on May 9th, 2013. No court clerk notes were obtained as they had been on December 7, 2015, and only “Court Summary” a form document was provided to me. Please note from top of page “Style of Proceedings” that I am not party. Please note from “Appearance” section the “Actual Duration” of the matter is 1.5 hours (noted as “total time” 1:05 “HEL”). Please note that before Fenlon J. “Adjudicator” are: (a) Counsel(s) Robert J. Ellis for Bank of Montreal (nominal respondent) (b) Ronald Bakonyi for the petitioner. The Respondents Ita Robbins & Frana Matich are deemed “not present”, while I am listed as “Other Attendee” (the “officious bystander”) The (other) order is an order made under preliminary issue, “Mr. Robbins is not permitted to make submissions on the respondent's behalf on this petition proceeding.”
91. That I verily believe that this “preliminary issue” order refers to the right of audience matter (based inappropriately on the Grauer J. order) and cannot in manner of interpretation of law be considered effectual on any other application including the conduct of sale, vacant possession order or other.
92. That I verily believe that when Madame Justice Fenlon gave order for sale of the property December 2014 for an amount barely more than one half of the selling value of the property in July 2015 (the date of the without prejudice offer) she included herself in the process because no other justice would participate after discovering how she had betrayed her brother justice Mister Justice Grauer.
93. [That I am aware from performing legal research and in consultation with other professionals in the field, that a substantive issue differs from a preliminary issue in that the substantive issue is related to the document and evidence filings, while a preliminary issue is one that arises at hearing which is not substantive in nature].
94. That continuing on with Court Summary relating to the December 9th, 2013 hearing under H130330 “Documents” there is only one document referenced in the Summary, the commencement document for foreclosure “Petition to the Court” described as “the end of planned appearances” along with orders which normally accompany the Order Nisi. Please note that Costs are awarded to the minimum Schedule “A” amount (normally made in ex parte 'substantive' matters, or matters of little “difficulty” or ex parte (normally the purview of court Masters).
95. That the “Order Made After Application” as it was “schemed”, “scammed” “produced”, and endorsed by “Officers of the Court” Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, filed May 31st, 2013 in Vancouver Courthouse registry under File No.: H130330 (as purported to have been obtained from Fenlon J on May 9th, 2013 through method of substantive application under BC Civil rules), could not have occurred (and did not occur) as the Order was made as a preliminary matter (forensic of Transcript of May 9th, 2013 hearing to follow) and not based upon proper BC Civil Rules which would require it to have been included in the originating petition or notice of claim if it had been a final order or under Rule 8 application.
96. That I am aware a petition application normally contains a single issue, a petition seeking substantive order for foreclosure and an application for judicial determination of right of audience would normally require leave by the party seeking it (no formality of document filing), or application by the party denying it. On the day of hearing, Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis could not have known that I was going to attend as their notice of hearing document of April 15, 2013 sought a 5 minute hearing before a Master which presumes an uncontested order.
97. That the preliminary issue of May 9, 2013 involving myself 'other attendee' to the proceedings (since it is a preliminary and non substantive issue) (addressed in detail in the submissions of April and September 2015), (and in my affidavit herein), a right of audience issue is a discretionary consideration and could not in any circumstance form part of any Application (whether originating as Notice of Claim or Petition), (usually used in one subject matter where evidence is adduced by affidavit only (substantive in nature); because each Adjudicator, (in this case Fenlon J,) does not have the authority to make a substantive order on a right of audience final order apply to another Adjudicator at another time as each is entrusted to make their separate and distinct decision at each separate and distinct hearing of substantive matters with regard to whom they will hear and whom they will not (including members of the Law Society of British Columbia).
98. That, again, I remind the reader of the transcript evidence of May 9, 2013 wherein Justice Fenlon repeatedly states that the Grauer J order of S111171 is “binding upon her” (sic). Her decision not to permit me to speak at hearing May 9th, 2013 is not made under authority of her constitutional discretion but, rather, is made in alignment with stare decisis principle of law & judicial comity but I believe instead results in an order made by Fenlon J. which in reality comes into direct conflict with Grauer J's Reasons & Orders of October 3, 2011 because of a fraudulent effort by her to pretend she is conveniently deluded, when in fact, I believe Fenlon J was purposefully and with targeted malice intended to disregard Grauer J's Reasons and Order.
99. That the Justice Grauer Reasons for Judgment includes his final order within the text of the Reasons. This Order is also drafted separately by the Law Society of BC., and legal counsel Michael Kleisinger, who knew as representative counsel along with Elizabeth Lyall, former boss to Lauri Fenlon at law firm Fasken Martineau at trial before Grauer J., when he prepared the Order (pursuant to section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act), that it was a matter of the Reasons of Justice Christopher Grauer made October 3, 2011 and I further believe & allege that Michael Kleisinger, Ronald Bakonyi (who admits to speaking with Michael Kleisinger on Transcript of hearing dated May 9, 2013 (BCSC H130330)), as well as Robert Ellis for BMO Bank of Montreal and Lauri Fenlon (in her capacity as justice of the bc supreme court), all knew on May 9, 2013 that they were intending to defraud Ita Robbins and Frana Matich of their property and rights to a fair hearing, while at the same time, denying my wife and I (and another) our Charter rights under the Constitution and affirmed by the Reasons of Grauer J.
100. That when my wife and I attended to Vancouver lawyer Ross Davidson in early October 2013 and mutually instructed him to file and register Enduring Powers of Attorney, and to deal with the matters of foreclosure, Mr. Davidson advised that my wife donate to me an Enduring Power of Attorney, and that I donate to her an Enduring Power of Attorney which was done, with only my wife's Power of Attorney to me being registered at BC Land Title and Survey office on 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam BC.
101. That the legal advice provided to me on May 9, 2013 during afternoon recess under H130330 was to inform the court (Fenlon J.) that I intended to upgrade the power of attorney in my possession (which had caused Adair J. under BCSC 106413 Robbins et al v BMO Bank) to Enduring Power of Attorney was heard in court submissions (and is on Transcript record) in the hopes of assuring an order to proceed to trial for hearing of outstanding issue.
102. I verily believe that when Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis heard my position they realized their duplicity in obtaining order Nisi would be discovered through the foreclosure proceedings to follow communicated this to 'conspiracy central office' and Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of B.C. and then they collectively hatched a plan to produce and file the forgery of Order Made After Application which did not occur until May 31, 2013, a full 3 weeks after the hearing, and did not serve this forged document, in order to ensure that it was not in the possession of my wife Ita (& other) during the 30 day period available for filing leave to appeal at BC Court of Appeal, and thereafter undertook to take action to threaten and interfere with two ongoing court processes (a) the process involving ongoing foreclosure and upcoming conduct of sale; and (b) BC Court of Appeal processes as they arised.
103. That I am 100% convinced that Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis both members of the Law Society of BC, (a corporation, and not an actual registered society) knew what the Reasons for Judgment and order of Grauer J. were intended to mean, but contemptuously disregarded these and chose instead to lie and deceive the court, as a part of an organized plan to defraud myself, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich of our property and our rights, because they believed as lawyers they possessed an entitlement to access to the courts, which they believed we ought not to have, or alternatively knew that those persons who occupied position in the court from employees at court registry to the office of justice would favour lawyers and the interests of the legal community over the interest of the ordinary person.
104. That I verily believe that claim to misapprehension which others may claim is available to Fenlon J., is the sole responsibility of Justice Fenlon to correct in whatever manner her capacity as an honest person may or may not be, and is available to her or through the Chief Justice for British Columbia who bears greater responsibility than simply condoning ongoing 'willful blindness'.
105. Justice Fenlon admits on transcript of May 9, 2013 to being 'bound by the Grauer J order' of Oct. 3, 2011. She asserts that she normally let's non lawyers speak. Why doesn't she confess herself to not be worthy of the job of justice, fix the mess she has participated in, and find other work.
106. That, as it is now Fenlon J., has acted in complete disregard to a judicial order confirmed by a BC Court of Appeal justice, a Division of the BC Court of Appeal, and a Division of the Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C. 35302).
107. That the Order of Grauer J. within his Reasons for Judgment directly permits me to speak on behalf of my wife (and any other person) with leave of the court, and furthermore denies the Law Society of BC 'any say in the matter'.
108. That the order in relation to denying me a right of audience on the basis of rejecting the Reasons and Order of fellow justice (Grauer J.) occurred prior to the order Nisi being granted.
109. That I further believe that: cause of action which results pursuant to the events of hearing May 9, 2013 including (a) Order Made After Application (May 9, 2013); (b) Conduct of Sale order (Dec. 9Th, 2014: (c) application for Vacant Possession April 7th, 2014; (d) dismissal of my application to be added as party (including consent order from Ita Robbins and Frana Matich) (April 23rd, 2014); (e) dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order & vacant possession order(s) (April 24th, 2014); (f) breach of the stay order of Justice Kloegman (April 7th, 2014) by false evidence (judicial order) in document binders of “CMIC” and Bakonyi at Conduct of Sale, false submissions made at Conduct of Sale; false evidence (orders) in document binders filed April 7th, 2014 and false statements made to a Justice on that date; false evidence (orders) in document binders April 23rd, and 24th, 2014 and false statements made at ex parte hearings on those dates – ultimately lies not only at the feet of Ronald Bakonyi, legal counsel for “CMIC” and Robert Ellis “BMO Bank”, but also with Justice Fenlon, Master Tokarek, Justices Smith, Davies and Kloegman J. and consequently form part of a criminal conspiracy based on the particular nature of the industry of law and the collection of tacit agreement which occurred which may later have implications for punitive civil damages on top of other heads of damages for non pecuniary damages as well as aggravated damages which I believe to be fairly estimated in the $62,000,000 range as no claim even remotely resembles the sheer awfulness that this one does, and further note in the “Beals” case at Supreme Court of Canada, with that court accepting the orders from the State of Florida, in a matter which the initial orders for damages were but a fraction of those eventually awarded, to which the SCC deemed to be within the range of 'acceptability of Canadians'.
110. That in Beals v Saldanha, Supreme Court of Canada, Neutral Citation: 2003 SCC 72, Case Number 28829 matter of conflict of laws involving Florida law and orders made in that U.S. State. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Florida court orders against original judgment of $8,000 U.S. amounting to total damages of $210,000 U.S plus and additional amount of punitive damages of $50,000 U.S where the final orders of better than $260,000 were 32.5 times the original amount of damages and where punitive damages (normally equivalent to general and specific damages) were more than 6 times original damages and where the Supreme Court of Canada specifically considered these high awards, relative to original in the public interest on the following reasoning: “The award of damages of the Florida jury does not violate our principles of morality such that enforcement of the monetary judgment would shock the conscience of the reasonable Canadian.”
111. That I verily believe ascertainable specific loss suffered by my wife and mother in law to be in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000 and with non pecuniary damages estimated at $1,000,000 and aggravated approximating $600,000 or total $3,200,000 the extrapolation based on multiplier of damages from “Beals” by the Supreme Court of Canada would equate to $104,000,000 and $19,000,000.
112. That I verily believe my calculation and estimates to also be in keeping with the BC Supreme Court order in Arsenovski v Bodin where $350,000 in bad faith damage award or more then 10 times damages sought were made. Using this calculation and based on my professional assessment of damages which I believe would apply in the Robbins matter this calculation would render a final award of $35,000,000.
113. That the averaging from Beals v Saldanha at Supreme Court of Canada and BC Supreme Court in Arsenvoski v Bodian were averaged to render a final award in the Robbins matter based on the facts, an award is the area of $53,000,000 would be reasonable and unlikely in the circumstances involving the Robbins to shock the conscience of Canadians if those Canadians were considered (a) reasonable people; and (b) were armed with the facts.
114. That I verily believe that if lawyers are able to produce and file fraudulent or forged orders, or orders they have no authority to make and file, or produce orders that do not correspond to actual court orders made, lie to the court, than the province, the country and International bodies need to ask, just how many of these fraudulent orders are filed in the court everyday, every week, month and so on in the province of British Columbia and in the country.
115. That I verily believe if sitting Justices are able to participate with lawyers to produce the type of dishonest outcomes as is proved in this case(s), than the the province, the country and International bodies need to ask, just how many of these fraudulent orders are filed in the court everyday, every week, month and so on in the province of British Columbia and in the country.
116. That when I attended to the Application for Conduct of Sale on behalf of my wife Ita Robbins (et al), before Master Tokarek December 2013, (following the cessation of the redemption period ordered under Order Nisi) the substantive matter of the Conduct of Sale application was for final order subsequent to that Order Nisi.
117. That in order to achieve a Conduct of Sale order an application is made with response application available to the respondents Ita Robbins & Frana Matich. Master Tokarek had a distinct right to make his own determination regarding right of audience, but elected not to hear from me, despite the filing of Enduring Power of Attorney registered at Land Title Office in , and the service of it upon Mr. Bakonyi for “CMIC” and Mr. Kleisinger for “LSBC”, on or about October 7, 2013 and the presentation of it to Master Tokarek, and within the response materials filed in relation to the Conduct of Sale “defence”.
118. That the Conduct of Sale order was obtained by Ron Bakonyi on the basis of the forged/false/fraudulent document entitled ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed May 31st, 2013 under BCSC File No.: H130330.
119. That at all times and all places in Superior Courts within the Province of British Columbia pursuant to the Order of Justice Grauer made October 3, 2011 a “commencement” document under section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act is: (a) a notice of claim; and (b) a petition. A rule 8 interlocutory application is not a commencing document. A rule 8 application is a “prosecution” document as described under section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act (B.C.), while a response to notice of claim & response to petition are “defence” documents.
120. At that hearing December 9th, 2013 before Master Tokarek within the requisite court binder produced by Ronald Bakonyi for “CMIC” was the fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION dated May 31st, 2013 alleged to have been made against me by Fenlon J. on May 9th, 2013. This evidence (apparently) fooled Master Tokarek into believing that (Fenlon J a justice with more authority for final orders than a Master) had made an order which affected his own determination on right of audience.
121. That at hearing December 9, 2013 and on transcript evidence of the December 2013 hearing for Conduct of Sale (from hand notes transcribed from court notes Dec 7, 2015) Master Tokarek is informed by me that 10 minutes prior to hearing I had served a lawsuit against Fenlon J., and against 'a Master of the Court' served in the appropriate manner (small claims out of an abundance of caution in protection of time limitations). This litigation preceded the order provided and was undertaken out of an abundance of caution and desire to protect litigation interests of myself, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich as these pertain to time limitations for “notice”
122. That I verily believe that the Order Made After Application is a false document made in Fenlon J.'s name, which overall is intended to 'deceive' court processes to follow, in order to protect Mr. Bakonyi's client and unconscionable lending agreement & fraudulent mortgage registration, which is later proven to deceive a number of the courts (Conduct of Sale) and included in application evidence before two BC Supreme Justices (April 23rh & 24th, 2014), in obtaining order of dismissal of my application to be added as party (standing) on ex parte basis and dismissal of Appeal of Conduct of Sale order of December 2014 (Master Tokarek) ex parte on (April 23, 2014) and for vacant possession order (April 24th, 2014) from Application originally heard April 7, 2014 adjourned with orders for stay of proceedings until April 30th, 2014.
123. That what follows here is a Directive from (then) BC Supreme Court Justice Bauman: That Effective March 25, 2013 Practice Direction on Masters Jurisdiction Number PD-42. Under heading of Restrictions on Masters jurisdiction para 2. “A Master has, subject to the limitations of section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the same jurisdiction under any enactment on the Rules of Court as a judge in chambers unless, in respect of any matter, the Chief Justice has given a direction that a master is not to exercise the jurisdiction.”
124. That one of the restrictions on a Master “(i) to grant a stay of proceedings where there is an arbitration”. The legal inference of this restriction is that a Master, including Master Tokarek on December 9, 2013 could have granted a stay of proceedings. That subsection (l) asserts the restriction “to set aside, vary or amend an order of a judge, other than (i) to abridge, or extend a time prescribed by an order where the original order was one that a master would have the jurisdiction to make.” A Master has jurisdiction to grant order nisi or to send a matter to Trial Scheduling. Master Tokarek could have stayed the order nisi or could have extended the time of the redemption period to accommodate other court matters.
125. Master Tokarek would not have the jurisdiction to deny the forged ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION made May 31st, 2013 falsely alleged to be from May 9, 2013. I verily believe this ORDER was the only matter which Master Tokarek could do nothing about, and would not have experience with, as he believed this ORDER to be substantive in nature and given by a Constitutional justice, hence his statement in court that “his hands are tied”.
126. That I verily believe the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION and its affect on Master Tokarek underscores the collective effort at this point in time to subvert the Direction of the Chief Justice and therein reflects the extension of the criminal conspiracy from the point in time of the receipt of the order nisi to the conduct of sale order.
127. That on June 6, 2013 under BC Court of Appeal No.: CAO40954 Ita Robbins & Frana Matich filed a Conventional Notice of Appeal at Court of Appeal registry in Vancouver from lower court orders under H130330. The orders sought include: 1. that the “order obtained by the Respondents May 9, 2013 be rescinded (invalidate)”; 2. “That an order be provided by this Honourable Court to strike the 'Petition to the Court' filed in the Vancouver registry of the BC Supreme Court on March 20, 2013 under the above noted registry file number”; 4. “That an order be provided by this Honourable Court that the Notice of Hearing form filed by the Respondent on April 15th, 2013 contained information which the Respondent knew to be fraudulent or untrue, and that a hearing date was thus obtained by the Respondent from BC Court Services, as a direct result of the conscious filing of that fraudulent and untrue information contained in the the Application to the court including the Notice of Hearing unilaterally scheduled by the Respondent May 9, 2013”.
128. That the BC Court of Appeal documents provide a place on the form documents to tick a box to designate the nature of the appeal to which Ita Robbins & Frana Matich denoted constitutional breach;, which would tend to override the authority of the BC Court of Appeal rules concerning types of appeal, particular those limiting some types of appeal including those from foreclosure, and in context of the facts, including that Mr. Bakonyi was induced to filing an appearance to the conventional appeal, but did not file other materials within this procedure required under the rules, although Ita Robbins & Frana Matich did, & that this appeal remains outstanding.
129. That Ita Robbins & Frana Matich were deemed vexatious litigants by the BC Court of Appeal based only on the outcomes produced by the criminal activities alleged herein and that Fenlon J. is now a Justice at BC Court of Appeal which creates a conflict between that outstanding conventional appeal of H130330 and in particular the May 9th, 2013 Order Made After Application.
130. That I included myself as respondent under the BC Court of Appeal No.: CAO40954 which the rules of the BC Court of Appeal permit.
131. That a Notice of Appearance was filed by Ronald Bakonyi with regard to the (conventional) June 6, 2013 BC Court of Appeal initiated by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich, on behalf of his client Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation on June 11, 2013.
132. That on March 31, 2014 a Court Order is filed at BC Court of Appeal in relation to Order(s) made by Justice Mary Saunders, BC Court of Appeal dated Tuesday, January 28, 2014 ordering that the the “application of the Appellants Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, for an Order extending the time period for filing an application for leave to appeal is dismissed”; and (It is further ordered that) “the application of the Appellants (Respondents), Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, for a stay of proceedings is dismissed.”
133. That neither myself, nor my wife Ita Robbins or her mother, were served with the May 31st, 2013 ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION within the 30 day appeal period or at anytime soon thereafter.
134. That when my wife and I hired Ross Davidson of James L. Davidson of Surrey, British Columbia in October 6, 2013 to deal with the appeal matters, in particular the leave matter, including the lack of proper notice (non service of the notice of hearing) and subsequent appeal we were not aware of the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed under the signatures of Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis May 31, 2013 for May 9th, 2013 order.
135. That Mr. Davidson was provided with the Court Summary of the events of May 9, 2013 H130330 and was not made aware of the Order Made After Application because neither myself nor my wife Ita were aware of it at the time, or he did not bother to look into the file. That as a consequence of what I allege to be criminal actions on the part of the Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis-Roadburg, & Michael Kleisinger members of the Corporation Law Society of British Columbia my lawyer and my wife's lawyer Ross Davidson was unable to properly represent us, or alternatively, because he is a member of the legal fraternity elected of his accord to not properly represent us.
136. That I believe Mr. Davidson in the month he had custody of the file ought to have performed better due diligence than he did.
137. That I am aware that the Federal Court of Canada and Supreme Court of Canada have far more rigorous provisions for proving service then which the BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal do, providing a distinct advantage for lawyers to 'cheat' when in custody of orders which they, and not the court produce, an opportunity for deceit made even more available to them in matters involving self litigants,
138. That I verily believe both Chief Justices of the BC Superior Courts are fully aware of the criminal nature of this document filing and orders written by Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis.
139. That of the Orders sought in the conventional appeal filed by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich June 6, 2013 under BCCA CAO40954 paragraph 1 of Orders Sought requests that “The order obtained by the Respondents May 9, 2013 be rescinded (invalidate)”, which Order sought does not specify which Order from May 9th, 2013 is being appealed. On the basis of the court filings including the Order of Madame Justice Saunders this would mean that the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed May 31st, 2013 has not had opportunity to be heard on appeal as it rightly fits the designation of an order made May 9th, 2013 under File No.: H130330, even though the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION was not known to Ita Robbins, Frana Matich or myself at the time of filing the appeal on June 6, 2013.
140. That I am aware that an application for leave to appeal was made by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich to the Supreme Court of Canada under S.C.C. Docket # (35772), following Saunders J.A.'s orders dismissing the application by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich for orders seeking extension of time for filing leave to appeal of the order nisi only occurring January 28, 2014.
141. That this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada accepted March 20, 2014 by the S.C.C included an order sought for stay of proceedings, later dismissed by the S.C.C at or about June 6, 2014.
142. That sequentially, the order nisi (the substantive order granted May 9th, 2013) follows the filing of the notice of hearing document (dated April 15th, 2013) of Ronald Bakonyi and Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation which I believe is a criminal filing and in context of its civil application, is not subject to Limited Appeal provisions of the BC Court of Appeal Rules, and the May 31, 2013 ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed in relation to May 9, 2013 hearing date is also not subject to the Limited Appeal Rules.
143. That the Petition for foreclosure includes as part of its whole affidavit evidence. It is the legal responsibility of the petitioner to ensure to include any triable issues in consideration of 'de minimum' thresholds in order to avoid the problems which occurred here notwithstanding what I verily believe to be criminal actions involved as well.
144. That I believe the Petition included false statements of evidence (within the supporting affidavit by legal inference of omission), the notice of hearing document of April 15, 2013 bearing false 'sworn' statement of Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, the false statements at hearing May 9, 2013 and the forged/fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed May 31, 2013 for May 9, 2013 effective date all represent events which form a criminal conspiracy to obtain an order nisi, and place incredible pressure and financial hardship on the respondents Ita Robbins & Frana Matich.
145. That I am aware that at some time unknown to myself or to my wife Ita or mother in law but many months after the event of filing Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis somehow were able to obtain Justice Fenlon's signature on the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION.
146. That on or about December 4th, 2015 Justice Fenlon ordered sale of the subject property for an amount less than $700,000 having BC Assessment Value of $814,000 when properties were selling for $200,000 to $300,000 above assessment. ($400,000 above assessed value at July 2015).
147. That during Ita Robbins and Frana Matich's application for appeal of the BC Court of Appeal of Justice Saunders order of January 28, 2014 (seeking order for extension of time for filing leave to appeal/costs) which period covered initial acceptance of application under S.C.C. 35772 (march 20, 2014) until June 6, 2014, I am aware that Ita Robbins & Frana Matich made a without prejudice offer to settle matters with Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation wherein they would agree not to contest the amount of principle owing in return for Cambridge extending the duration of the mortgage until July 2015. which provided Ronald Bakonyi and his clients Cambridge Mortgage Investment and Peet and Cowan Financial Services the opportunity to realize $392,000 at July 15, 2015 on a without prejudice basis, prior to the bevy of criminal undertakings being discovered.
148. That I believe this attests to my wife and my own integrity and credibility in the matter, as well as the comparative abject deprivation, greed and disregard for law, justice or fairness by Ronald Bakonyi his clients, Robert Ellis and his clients, Michael Kleisinger and his employer Law Society of BC, a number of the justices (chief justice(s) of the BC provincial court, that they would be so malicious as to not even consider a reasonable settlement while they were robbing us of our family home, property and every right they had sworn to uphold.
149. That I verily believe that even if this offer had been accepted it cannot prevent the fact that the position of Ita Robbins and Frana Matich in making said offer was undertaken while under extreme duress and while victims of a crime prior to the taking of the property by force of RCMP (without legal justification for attending).
150. That I aware that BC Assessment increased from $814,000 to $980,000 over this period covered in the settlement proposal. I am also aware that during this same period real estate of detached properties in the area of the subject property (and throughout most of the lower mainland) were selling upwards of 33%-50% over BC Assessment.
151. That I aware that the subject property was listed for $1,200,000 and I verily believe that it was sold for this amount. That a property across the street with assessment value $100,000 more than Honeysuckle Lane recently sold for around $1,600,000.
152. That I have seen photos of the so called improvements to the property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, which I am aware through speaking with my wife our not to our liking, as we planned to have an associate of mine who has built his own home do improvement in the property for a budgeted amount of about $40,000 in materials only.
153. That we maintain our legal right to be immediately returned to our home at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, in Coquitlam, B.C.
154. That I verily believe that Justice Fenlon was a willing partner in the effort to steal our property and its contents insured for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, the status of which we remain uncertain which amounts exceed $1,000,000 and thus compels consideration of the Criminal Code of Canada and mandatory consideration of a two year jail sentence and was used with her consent to help exact revenge for her former law firm Fasken Martineau and former boss Elizabeth Lyall, who had done poorly and been embarrassed in the matter of Law Society of BC versus Glen P. Robbins under BCSC S111171.
155. That I am aware that this is not the first time a justice of the superior courts has participated in questionable activity in relation to the sale of property, That Justice Koenigsburg and her husband knowingly removed her husbands name from title on their home in order to avert a $260,000 California judgment (2004) against her husband which the justice had to have known was a fraudulent conveyance.
156. That I am aware that then Chief Justice Donald Brennar heard the application for fraudulent conveyance and dismissed it. I am further aware that a researcher named Kari Simpson wrote to the Canadian Judicial Council to complain. Donald Brennar in his 60's retired soon thereafter.
157. That I am aware my wife contacted the insurer of our property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Wawanesa Insurance with regard to the missing property in September 2014 but have yet to receive a response.
158. That the BC Court of Appeal Rules stipulate under Part 2 “Application for Leave to Appeal” “Limited Appeal orders” under section 2.1 “The following orders are prescribed as limited appeal orders for the purpose of section 7 of the Act”: (vii) Rule 21-7 [Foreclosure and cancellation]”.
159. That I am aware that the ORDER OF A JUSTICE made January 28, 2014 (signed and filed March 31st, 2014) pertains only to “THE APPLICATION of Appellants (Respondents), Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, “for an Order extending the time period for filing the application for leave to appeal, and for an Order dated May 9, 2013 given in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under petition action No. VLC-S-H-130330, Vancouver registry be stayed until the appeal of this matter is fully heard.”
160. That I verily believe the Order of Saunders J.A., has no actual bearing on orders sought NOTICE OF APPEAL filed June 6, 2013 including “1. The order obtained by the Respondents May 9, 2013 be rescinded (invalidate)”; “2. That an order be provided by this Honourable Court to strike the 'Petition to the Court' filed in the Vancouver registry of the BC Supreme Court on March 20, 2013 under the above noted registry file number”; “3. That an order be provided by this Honourable Court that the Respondent did willfully breach the Rules of Service as provided by the BC Supreme Court Rules by filing a Notice of Hearing under BCSC registry No.: VLC-S-H-130330 prior to the end of the 21 day period allotted to the Appellants under the Rules for filing their Response to Petition”; 4. That an order be provided by this Honourable Court that the Notice of Hearing form filed by the Respondent on April 15, 2013 contained information which the Respondent knew to be fraudulent or untrue, and that a hearing date was thus obtained by the Respondent from BC Court Services, as a direct result of the conscious filing of that fraudulent and untrue information contained in the Application to the court including the Notice of Hearing unilaterally scheduled by the Respondent (Bakonyi for “CMIC”) May 9, 2013.”; “5. That an order be (sic) provided by this Honourable Court that the hearing date obtained April 15, 2013 for May 9, 2013 was not in compliance with the BC Supreme Court Rules pertaining to time periods for notice and for filing a response to application.”; 6. That an order be provided by this Honourable Court that both the Respondent and BC Court Services did by way of negligence either purposeful or constructive deny the Appellant's their statutory right to a fair hearing protected under the Constitution of Canada and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms”; “7. That a direction or order be provided by this Honourable Court that hereinafter any documents filed by the Respondent with respect to any matters involving the Appellant's be personally acknowledged by signature of the acting Registrar of that court operating as employee of BC Court Services under the jurisdiction of the BC Justice Ministry evidencing that each of the documents filed by the Respondent are done so inconsistent with the BC Rule of Court – which direction or order is sought based on the fact that the BC Supreme Court of Vancouver registry – BC Court Services permitted documents to be filed by the Respondent at court services Vancouver registrar which the Registrar would have known or ought to have known were based on assertions and representations made by the Respondent which could not be true including: (a) the Respondent filing a Notice of hearing application representing that the Appellants had filed a Response to Petition when NO Response to Petition had in fact been filed; (b) filing a Notice of hearing application representing that the Respondents had contacted the Appellant's for time estimates when it had not done so.” ; and as a consequence these matters remain outstanding and under appeal as they are not related to the Limited Appeal necessary for the Order Nisi.
161. That I confirm that Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation who would have consulted with lawyer Ronald Bakonyi at all times and places as required by the Legal Professions Act (B.C.) ought to have made inquiry with their legal counsel regarding the criminal filing of the notice of hearing, unless, the Board of Directors approved the criminal action in the first place.
162. That I believe that Justice Mary Saunders “oversight” of the orders sought by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich in their Notice of Appeal filed June 6, 2013 should be considered with some scrutiny of doubt as to the nature of true intentions of Her Honour in relation to her oath in relation to the Judges Act based in part of evidence from Her order from BC Court of Appeal File No.: CAO4183 arising from appeal of foreclosure order made April 24th, 2014. (I remind the reader this order was obtained during a stay period relating to conduct of sale order due to expire April 30th, 2014 – and this information was not included in Orders that he produced following April 7, 2014 hearing before Madame Justice Kloegman. In that order Her Honour Summarizes: “This application for a declaration the appellants are vexatious litigants is granted in relation to appeal arising from foreclosure proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and they are precluded from filing further appeals arising from those proceedings absent leave of the court or the assistance of a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia. The declaration does not affect extant proceedings. Directions are given to bring this application for leave to appeal to a hearing.” (This order is included at page “6” of S.C.C. Leave to Appeal submissions stamped May 7, 2015).
163. The evidence I provide relating to my position with respect to Justice Saunders including the conspicuous assertions pertaining to the criminal act of file a false document notice of hearing, (which act Ross Davidson advised myself and my wife (October 2013) ought to have precipitated the refiling of the petition or other commencement action (notice of claim)), involves the above order Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia September 18, 2013, Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia October 3, 2014 and the vexatious litigant order against Ita Robbins and Frana Matich. Section 29 of the BC Court of Appeal states: “If, on the application of any person, a justice is satisfied that a person has habitually, persistently and without reasonable cause commenced vexatious proceedings in the court, the justice may, after hearing that person or giving them opportunity to be heard, order that proceeding must not be brought or commenced in the court with leave of a justice.”
164. That Madame Justice Saunders followed the September 18, 2014 'ex parte hearing' with MEMORANDUM dated September 23, 2014 acknowledging issues in relation to service of documents raised by affidavit of Glen Robbins she had not “realized...was filed” at the time of the hearing. Clearly, based on the condition of her order in relation to vexatious proceeding orders made against Ita Robbins and Frana Matich that they be given opportunity to be heard on the matter (to defend) themselves the issue of whether or not service was properly affected would be relevant to the satisfaction of making the order whole. I note that Justice Saunders asserts in her MEMORANDUM that “Barring service in accordance with the Rules, the application will have to be re-served, and heard again on a new date”.
165. That the respondent Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation process servers Dye and Durham admitted in affidavit evidence that they had attended to the address at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane to serve their response to motion for stay set by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich for September 18, 2014 when they knew that this address had been vacated by illegal assault on the property with writ of possession June 10, 2014 by taping 3 4” thick binders of significant weight on those doors, as well as allegedly serving them to Frana Matich's residence at 4215 Dundas, Burnaby, BC, recognized by Saunders J as not being a valid address for service of documents.
166. That as a lawful respondent to the BC Court of Appeal for stay proceedings of the appeal of the vacant possession order I was never served with any documents, nor am I aware of said documents being served in the manner suggested under affidavit, and that I further believe any document so served did not comply with the Rules, and despite knowing this, Saunders J.A. failed to compel re service of the documents.
167. That I am aware that it is the responsibility of the party seeking to establish a new service address or service substitution to apply to the court for said orders under the BC Civil Rules.
168. That I believe that notwithstanding the affidavit of service provided by Mr. Bakonyi in response to Madame Justice Saunders 'further order' the affidavit filed was another false statement sworn under oath by agents (process servers) operating on behalf of Mr. Bakonyi and his client “CMIC”.
169. That I verily believe a Justice having given order of vexatious proceeding against two person in ex parte hearing where serious questions remain about the provision of service of documents is known to it, (affecting the nature of that ex parte hearing in the first instance) and where a condition of that order involving litigants who have filed precisely two BC Court of Appeal applications to that Court in their respective lifetime, made by that same justice demands a right they be heard is more than just a little contentious, to the point of controversial, it certainly cannot be said to be good stewardship of a court proceeding.
170. That in relation to this order of Mary Saunders I declare that at no time in any court proceeding at BC Court of Appeal did Ronald Bakonyi include the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed May 31st, 2013 under file H130330. That in relation to this order I declare that the BC Court of Appeal and specifically retired BC Chief Justice Lance Finch and current BC Chief Justice Robert Bauman (former BC Supreme Court Justice) were well aware of the issues in relation to the matter of the misapprehension of the Grauer J order (kindly put for efficiency) by Fenlon J. (nonfeasance).
171. That notwithstanding the vexatious proceeding order which ought have been given Madame Justice Saunders does include that the declaration does not include 'extant proceedings' (existing proceedings) and as such, I verily believe that an extant proceeding would include the matters under BC Court of Appeal CAO40954.
172. That I note at page 2 of 2 of the Order at page 6 of submissions that Madame Justice Saunders provides the following: “Directions are given clarifying that (I) (sic) am not a party in this (Appeal of Ita Robbins & Frana Matich) or another appeal, and addressing the discarding of materials he (sic) (I) may send or present.”.
173. That at all times and all places involving matters pertaining to lower court case file H130330 as they were on appeal to the BC Court of Appeal involving myself as a respondent as CAO40954 was, no order was provided by any court including by Saunders J.A. removing me as party, which on its face would make prohibiting the presentation of court filings by me as party impossible.
174. That by giving order of vexatious litigant status against Ita Robbins & Frana Matich without satisfaction of any criteria of law for so doing, Saunders J.A. was further encumbering without reasonable justification Ita and & Frana's ability to have hearing before a Division of that Court on matters relating CAO40954 which remain outstanding to date.
175. That I verily believe that in fact my appeal to the BC Court of Appeal still ongoing at the time of Madame Justice Saunders orders(s) from ex parte hearing CA41833 (vacant possession order) are ultra vires the reality of my own BC Court of Appeal (dismissal of my Jan 2, 2014 application to be added as party to H130330) under CAO41787 (with application heard June 2, 2014 before Wilcock J.A.), is a matter where I am a party and that the order made by Saunders J.A., is “another appeal” and that her giving directive to the court registry to “discard the materials he may send or present” is made without regard to the extant proceedings before Wilcock J., reflecting I believe further partiality on the part of Saunders J.A.
176. That, I believe that to a lesser extent than Madame Justice Fenlon and her involvement with the foreclosure matter dated May 9, 2013 and pursuant to her giving order for sale of the property at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, B.C. December 9, 2014 it appears to me that Saunders J.A was not remotely interested in the matters of administration of justice and the rights of myself, my wife or mother in law and as such displayed actions consistent with a declaration of (nonfeasance).
177. That in the Orders sought by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich under BCCA CAO40954 appeal hearing has been heard pertaining to the appeal of the Notice of Hearing document filed April 15, 2013 by Ronald Bakonyi of Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (“CMIC”) or in relation to “The order obtained by the Respondents May 9, 2013 be rescinded (invalidate)” featured in paragraph 1 of order sought under NOTICE OF APPEAL date stamped June 6, 2014 under BCCA file No.: CA040954.
178. I verily believe that had Mr. Bakonyi acting for Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation properly including in his Order subsequent to hearing before Kloegman J. under H130330 on April 7, 2014 the stay orders she made, that the matter of BC Court of Appeals as they happened would never have occurred and as such amounting to a knowing swindle of court process and of myself, my wife and another by Bakonyi on behalf of his clients.
179. That in his (late) submissions filed in our application for stay order of the vacant possession (with existing stay order in place with Madame Justice Kloegman of April 7, 2014) Mr. Bakonyi on behalf of Cambridge Mortgage and Investment Corporation & Peet & Cowan Financial Services to BC Court of Appeal September 2014, Ronald Bakonyi did not include the forged Order Made After Application of May 31, 2013 from lower court H130330.
180. That pending inquiry of this criminal complaint, these matters remain open to myself, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich to be heard at S.C.C., advanced in the public interest in the proper administration of justice.
181. That Part 3 “Notice of Appeal” Section 11 filing of Notice of Appeal in Form 7 was completed in adherence to the BC Court of Appeal Rules. That section 13 “Filing of Appearance” was also adhered to. That pursuant to section 19 of the BC Court of Appeal rules under file No.: CAO40954 the Appeal Books were filed.
182. That I verily believe no specific orders were sought under Notice of Appeal dated June 6, 2013 seeking leave to appeal of the order nisi, and that any application to dismiss opportunity to seek leave under CA040954 is ultra vires that Notice of Appeal, and that any Application in relation to the leave matter ought to have been brought under Part 6 section 32 of the BC Court of Appeals for “Applications”.
183. That I verily believe from intensive scrutiny of “Martins” on the Criminal Code that any document filed in any registry which by its production and filing is evidence of a criminal offence, cannot be sustained as valid in a civil proceeding, and furtherance of its use in additional proceedings contaminates the entire court filing, and serves to bring the entity of the judicial system into disrepute whenever any benefit is attained by the party filing it and by the justice or judge granting it.
184. That I verily believe in the absence of evidence to the contrary the owners and Directors of Peet and Cowan Financial Services and Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation “PCFS: and “CMIC”, as well as the Board of Directors of BMO Bank of Montreal, instructed their respective legal counsel Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis to go to any length necessary including breaching the Criminal Code to defeat the challenge to the fraudulent mortgage filed at BC Land Title Registry in the name of “CMIC” on property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane Coquitlam, BC, as no “Officer of the Court” is permitted to breach the Criminal Code on the instruction of a client.
185. That I do verily believe that if affidavit evidence was provided by the aforementioned Directors and owners of the mortgage brokerage and financial services and by BMO Bank of Montreal clearly indicating that they had no idea that (a) a false statement was being made by lawyer Ronald Bakonyi in filing the April 15, 2015 notice of hearing under H130330, or that a false ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION had been conceived, endorsed and filed by Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis on their behalf, that this might go some distance to militating against their participation in this malfeasance-misfeasance and or punitive civil damages given the treatment of those damages in decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and other provincial superior courts including Saskatchewan Superior Court of Appeal in “Branco”.
186. That I verily believe in light of further awareness of these events that no action (nonfeasance) should be interrupted as guilt.
187. That the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION of May 31st, 2013 (for May 9, 2013) and notice of hearing document dated and 'efiled' April 15, 2013 have not been provided with an opportunity to be heard by BC Court of Appeal, and I believe that such an appeal, following first an investigation by Crown Counsel, and applicable full police investigation, and if necessary thereafter, should be heard at Supreme Court of Canada despite no final Orders being made at BC Court of Appeal, based on the fact that: (a) Justice Fenlon has been promoted to the court of appeal; (b)and to the fact that (as described later) that Chief Justice Chris Hinkson (possessing the equivalent powers of a BC Court of Appeal Justice, and being a BC Court of Appeal Justice prior to his appointment as Chief Justice), is implicated in allegations of malfeasance and misfeasance in this affidavit evidence, and that further accusations of nonfeasance have been leveled against the Chief Justice for British Columbia Robert Bauman.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017