Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Vol 7 - Criminal Complaint (Affidavit-BC Notary) against lawyers: Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis-Ellis Roadburg, Cambridge Mortg & Peet and Cowan Fin-Michael Kleisinger LSBC, Lauri Fenlon J, Chris Hinkson (QC) (CJ), BC Justice Minister, RCMP, Real Estate Bo
  Jun 02, 2016

Commentary
586. That (once again) Rule 1-2 “Citation and Application” “Petitions and applications” [noting that an interlocutory application is different from an initiating application by petition or by an action (notice of claim)] “If an enactment, other than these Supreme Court Civil Rules or the Supreme Court Family Rules, authorizes an application to the court or to a judge, the application must be (a) by petition under Rule 16-1 or requisition under Rule 17-1, or (b) if the application is for an order than than a final order, by application under Part 8”
587. That for purposes of solidifying point I submit that under under the Court Rules Act, Supreme Court Rules Part 1 Rule 1-1 Interpretation there is no definition for “application”, just the following definitions: “originating pleading” means a notice of claim, counterclaim, third party notice or any document, other than a petition, that starts a proceeding”; “petition proceeding” means a proceeding started by a petition”.
588. That the application by Michael Kleisinger of January 24, 2014 is (now brought under File Number S111171) does not qualify as a 'stated case' under Rule 18-2 (the only rule which recognizes the authorizing enactment as having jurisdiction over the rules- “Rule 18-2 (2)(a)”).
589. That I verily believe that the filing of this application document for hearing at Trial Scheduling under S111171 on its own initiative and in particular light of the evidence of correspondence leading up to it, is evidence of a compliance officer with a public body intentionally filing a false document with the court in order to cause harm to a member of the public.
590. That I telephoned Vancouver registry BC Supreme Court February 29th, 2016 and spoke with civil registry at 10:15 AM, making inquiry as to what was meant on the stamp in the upper left hand corner of the page denoted as S-111171 Vancouver Registry (upper right hand corner) which stamp stipulates: “Vancouver Supreme Court Scheduling – date January 24, 2014”. This is contained in the document Notice of Application referencing “Chambers Assize Pilot Project.” This “Notice of Application” is not a notice of claim, nor is it a petition. However the orders sought are final orders as described under the rules.
591. That during my conversation with the “person in charge” at Trial Scheduling February 29, 2016, I asked how was it that a Notice of Application, “obviously seeking final orders right there on Page 1, Part 1 “Orders Sought” could be given a hearing date?.”
592. That the response from Elisa(?) was that neither she or anyone else working at Trial Scheduling are trained as lawyers and therefore the documents are not checked. When I suggested that this was because “officers of the court” are expected to file documents in compliance with the rules, Elisa responded “Yes”. In subsequent question I asked her, how is a mistake remedied? To which she responded: “at the hearing before the person hearing it”.
593. That I verily believe that Trial Scheduling, notwithstanding their recent claims to lack of official legal training, has by experience and training of BC Civil Rules sufficient knowledge and awareness to know when a document is not valid within the court processes, and that they were operating in a manner complicit to enable Michael Kleisinger of Law Society BC with his nefarious and unlawful efforts at gaining superior access to the courts, and to deny me rightful access to the courts, in particular a trial hearing 4 months in advance of what any other party might obtain in connection to a one day trial following filing a petition at civil chambers desk, following the longer 21 day filing period for response, and subsequent establishment of a trial date from that point likely in May or June 2014.
594. That I further determined through Inquiry at Trial Scheduling on January 29, 2016 that the document denoted with stamp “Supreme Court Scheduling” is filed “unilaterally” by a party without Notice to the other. That I understand that Michael Kleisinger of Law Society BC filed this Notice of Application in reference to a Chambers Assize Pilot Project, “for the orders set out in Part 1 below”: 1. “A declaration pursuant to section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, c. 443, that Glen P. Robbins is a vexatious litigant; and 2. An order that Mr. Robbins will not institute any legal proceeding, on his own behalf or on behalf of others, in any court, without obtaining leave from the court.”
595. That I understand from research and speaking with other persons involved with Chambers Assize Projects, that these are relatively new endeavours by court administration to clean up the crowded applications and hearings before justices, and not as an opportunity for the Law Society of BC to game the system.
596. That I understand from speaking with Trial Division at Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court that a “Requisition” was filed February 13, 2014, 20 calendar days following the Notice of Application seeking the following order: “To adjourn the chambers hearing set for 1 day during the week of February 17-21, 2014 at 9:45 a.m on the Chambers Assize Pilot Project to March 3, 2014 at 9:45 a.m.”
597. That the Requisition does not include an affidavit in support of the order it seeks and is filed based on false statements as follows: “1. The petitioner's application is without notice. The respondent has been served with the petitioner's Notice of Application and supporting material filed January 24, 2014 pursuant to the Rules of Court. To date, the respondent has not provided a Response.”
598. That at no time in this application did the Law Society of BC possess the legal bona fides of a lawful petitioner under the BC Court Civil Rules.
599. That I am aware that a Requisition may be filed by a party which has already filed and served application without further notice to the respondent party when the respondent party has not filed and served its response.
600. That notwithstanding lack of service, the Requisition filed February 13, 2014 is ultra vires court procedure on the basis that it follows an Application that is also ultra vires proper court procedure.
601. That I verily believe Mr. Kleisinger attempt to unlawfully induce me into acting in a manner which would might be inferred by consent when he rights at bottom of page 1 of his letter January 24, 2014: “Under the Rules of Court, you are required to serve us with your materials no later than eight business days after you have been served with our application. If you do not serve us with your filed materials, the Law Society may proceed with its application without further notice to you.”
602. That this letter written and signed by a “compliance officer” of a public body is clear evidence of that public body attempting to use its office and authority to pressure and deceive me into engaging a civil process which they know to be invalid and in breach of the BC Court Rules for which they are responsible.
603. [That I was never served with the Notice of Application of January 24, 2014 as I was not in Coquitlam, BC (on the record) during the period of time it was alleged to have been served. Accordingly, I could not have complied with “the petitioner's (sic) estimate the application will take 1 day, because I was not aware of the notice of application in the first instance. That I note further at para 3. the Law Society's requisition the second order it seeks, which I believe was intentionally left out.]
604. That on January 30, 2014 Michael Kleisinger writes to me (again) in letter dated January 30, 2014. I believe he 'continues his efforts to game the civil process and myself' by Referencing his letter as Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins which gives the impression to any reasonable person armed with the facts that a valid legal process is underway. This document does not reference the file number.
605. That I verily believe the 'con game' Michael Kleisinger is perpetrating here is one of 'legal semantics', consciously manipulated on the face of formal court documents filed in the court registry (Trial Scheduling) which has links to the Judicial administration.
606. That I am aware that in process of serving court documents upon a Justice of the Superior Court of British Columbia, they must be served at Trial Scheduling and not at any other desk. That I am aware that if BC Court Services is to be served documents this occurs at another desk in the court registry.
607. That I verily believe BC Court Services and BCGETU personnel at civil registry and trial scheduling Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court located at 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, B.C., eagerly participated in actions that amount to abuse of process in order to make the lawyers and higher authority at BC Attorney General including the Deputy Minister in charge of BC Court Services happy – as I believed my interests and those of my wife and mother in law were irrelevant to them, in much the same manner that Clifford Olsen's victims were irrelevant to them.
608. That Mr. Kleisinger's then files another document under his signature at Trial Scheduling which states: “REQUISTION” in bold capital letters on it, knowing that under the BC Civil Rules, some proceedings may be started by “Requisition” but only with the consent of other party, when actually, this “Requisition” authorized by Michael Kleisinger the person in charge with all 'British Columbian's' compliance with the Legal Professions Act (BC), was instituted in the document and filed with Trial Scheduling only to change the original hearing date.
609. That I verily believe that Mr. Kleisinger was the person responsible for non service of the original application, and had process servers lie about its service, in order to assist him in his legitimizing ('document laundering') an invalid “commencement” process in the first instance (the application) with a Requisition designed upon filing to give the appearance that a valid procedure was ongoing when it was not.
610. That I contacted Trial Scheduling following the hearing before Justice Kloegman following the April 7, 2014 hearing and was informed by Trial Scheduling Manager Sue Smolen that bookings could not be made until the first week of May 2014 and nearest bookings would commence in the subsequent month or two on a first come basis.
611. That it is the policy at Vancouver courthouse Trial Scheduling BC Supreme Court to take Trial Scheduling (over two hours) only in the first week of any month.
612. That when Ronald Bakonyi filed his 1st application for vacant possession for hearing April 7, 2014 on March 20, 2014 he had to have known as any reasonable person in his professional filed operating to standard of expectation would know, that he could not possibly obtained an order on April 7, 2014 the date of his choosing, with my application to be added as party scheduled for Chambers hearing April 23, 2014, and the appeal of the conduct of sale scheduled for April 24, 2014.
613. That Mr. Bakonyi could not have booked a hearing date on March 20, 2014 because this date was not in the first week of the month, but could have waited until April 1, 2014 to do so, and that it was exclusively his mistake to make application without consultation to either Ita Robbins or another for a hearing of vacant possession application when he knew there was two applications which preceded it, namely my own application to be added as party (which would have discovered the forged Order Made After Application under BCSC H130330 of May 31, 2013), plus the appeal of the conduct of sale order.
614. That according to telephone conversation with Trial Scheduling April 1,2,3,4 (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) technically constitute the 1st week of April 2014, but if there were openings to establish trial dates, the following Monday April 7th, 2014 the date of Mr. Bakonyi and his client Cambridge's choosing, might have been allowed. That on transcript evidence Justice Kloegman directs her court clerk to determine a Trial Date from Trial Scheduling and Sue Smolen Manager for April 2014 to accommodate (a) my application to be added as party; (b) appeal of conduct of sale order; (c) application for vacant possession order with Trial Scheduling responding in the negative to the request thus provoking the stay order of April 7, 2014 and adjournment of the application.
615. That again I reiterate that Mr. Bakonyi admits in evidence that I contacted him April 19, 2014 out of courtesy to adjourn the hearing date of my application to be added as party of April 23, 2014 and appeal of conduct of sale order by Ita Robbins (Frana Matich's) for April 24, 2014, and instead, Mr. Bakonyi attended to these dates (my date and my wife's dates for which no response to application or defence to appeal had been filed and served within the time frame allotted by the Rules of the Court) and obtained dismissal orders on each (ex parte) and also obtained vacant possession order (April 24, 2014) with a stay of execution order in place until April 30, 2014.
616. That under Supreme Court of Canada docket 35772, the leave application of Ita Robbins & Frana Matich where file No.: was provided March 20, 2014 (March 18, 2014 to Mr. Bakonyi and client), orders were sought to grant appeal of order of Justice Saunders of BC Court of Appeal wherein she had dismissed application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal order nisi. A stay order of proceedings was also sought at the same time. Both applications were dismissed by a division of the Supreme Court of Canada, however it is noted that no costs were applied to the stay application though a response was filed to it by Mr. Bakonyi.
617. That I verily believe Mr. Bakonyi and his confederates in the crimes against myself and my family inclusive of Robert Ellis and Lauri Anne Fenlon (Justice) knew that the vacant possession obtained April 24, 2014 while under stay order and acted upon illegally July 14, 2014 with RCMP detaining me in defense of my home was fraudulently obtained, lest why would they have applied ex parte during application for sale of property December 6th, 2014 before confederate Lauri Anne Fenlon (in her role as justice) for another vacant possession order (which was given).
618. That it remains open to us to seek application for leave on the sale of property order and 2nd vacant possession order, in conjunction with 'our' outstanding appeal at BC court of appeal of order May 9, 2013 filed June 2013 which includes in context the forged order of May 31, 2013 under BCSC H130330.
619. That on April 7, 2014 at hearing of Mr. Bakonyi's application Madame Justice Kloegman asked the court clerk to phone down to trial scheduling and determine if there was a date to hear all matters including my application to be added as party, the appeal of the conduct of sale order, and Mr. Bakonyi's vacant possession application anytime in April, 2014. The returning answer from the court clerk was “NO”.
620. Accordingly, as referenced herein inclusive of court clerk notes a stay of proceeding order against the conduct of sale (the only matter with an order attached to it) good until April 30, 2014.
621. That I am aware the stay order as against the conduct of sale and the application of appeal against the conduct of sale order on April 30, 2014 making Thursday May 1, 2014 the first day that a trial date might have been secured.
622. That, again the April 23rd, and 24th, 2014 dates were mine and my wife's dates where no application or defense had been provided by Mr. Bakonyi and were ours to adjourn.
623. That a Chambers hearing is different from a Trial hearing as the latter involves matters over two hours which the hearing on April 7, 2014 before Kloegman J. determined the collective applications would require.
624. That I undertook this process on the understanding that I was to obtain the first available trial date following the 'extinguishment' of the April 30, 2014 stay order made by Kloegman J in relation to the conduct of sale order made December 9, 2013 by Master Tokarek
625. That hearing dates for trial the first week of May 2014 were for a couple of months hence.
626. (Back to Kleisinger and Hinkson CJ) That I note that my Application Response was filed March 18, 2014 as an Application Response and not as a Petition Response. I further denote the document as the “Application response of Glen P. Robbins” (“the application response”) in the form required under Rule 8 for applications. That I note that I signed the document February 25, 2014 for filing 21 days later which is the time permitted for a response to petition, and not the time permitted for an application response which is shorter.
627. The point here is that I was laying out chronological 'bread crumbs' of the intentional procedural malfeasance being produced by Kleisinger in cooperation with Hinkson and BC Court Services.
628. That I write in part on the face of the front page of the application response in bold and capitalized letters within a “PLEASE NOTE” the following: “THIS IS A RESPONSE TO the notice of application of the The Law Society of British Columbia filed January 24, 2014. PLEASE NOTE THAT NO APPLICATION DATE FOR HEARING BEEN SET, OR PROVIDED BY THE petitioner (February 17-22, 2014), but is provided in this response by the “application respondent””.
629. That under “Part 1: Orders Consented To:” I write: “1. The application respondent does not consent to any orders sought, and puts the court registry on notice that he believes this application to be based on fraud and an abuse of process and should be brought to the attention, of the chief justice(s) and the court administrator in charge Kevin Jardine.”
630. I verily believe that the fact the BC Court Registry took no action upon accepting this document for filing is evidence of nonfeasance on its part given the availability of legal or judicial opinion directly available to them.
631. That I note that Hinkson CJ refused to deal with my application response on the basis that his office was included as respondent (which he interpreted as him being included) and believe that when he was going through document filings after hearing realized the concerns I had presented on my documents, and rather than do the correct thing and investigate the procedural irregularities, instead enabled Michael Kleisinger's malfeasance, and was delighted to do so, because of his close association to the Law Society of BC, anticipation of the 'high fives' he would be getting as his first law society lunch the following week for helping them to cheat me, notwithstanding the damage he caused to his own reputation and more importantly to the administration of justice, the former of greater importance to Hinkson CJ.
632. That I verily believe that the Court Registry had an obligation to raise the impropriety of the Law Society's accessing the courts in clear breach of the Civil Rules for procedure, and in using an improper method of filing, and no or inadequate notice to achieve a hearing of the orders it sought which I further believe resulted in a willful effort to discredit and defame me.
633. That under “Part 2: Orders Opposed:” I write: 1. “The application respondent opposes all order sought and puts the court registry on notice that he believes this application to be based on fraud and an abuse of process and should be brought to the attention, of the chief justice(s) and the court administrator Kevin Jardine”.
634. That under “Part 4: Factual Basis” I write: “1. (WARNING) This application is brought under BSCS File S111171, which is (sic) the same action number as a petition already brought by the petitioner, the Law Society of BC against the respondent Glen P. Robbins which matter was heard in September 2011 by Justice Grauer, which matter was appealed to the BC Court of Appeal, and thereafter received a docket number “35302” from the Supreme Court of Canada. Please conduct due diligence to view this document online at Supreme Court of Canada #35302.”
635. That essentially, the Part 1 Orders Sought by the Law Society of BC in January 24, 2014 filing under BCSC S111171 involved a new final order the vexatious proceeding (“litigant”) [Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, c; 443, that Glen P. Robbins is a vexatious litigant and should never have been placed on the docket].
636. That to quote Mister Justice Grauer from the 'real' petition under BCSC S111171 it is not “without irony” that at page 5 of the so called “application”, “petition”, (or notice of claim according to Hinkson CJ's intake), Part 3 “Legal Basis” para 19 Mr. Kleisinger writes: “Section 3 of the Legal Profession Act charges the Law Society with the duty to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice. Unfortunately the Law Society's injunction has not deterred Mr. Robbins from bringing and re-instituting vexation proceedings.”
637. That there is no causal connection in law between the order of Justice Grauer pursuant to his Reasons for Judgment October 3, 2011 and section 18 of the Supreme Court Act (B.C.). Justice Grauer's order under subsection 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act pertains only to the filing of documents at court registry where an action (notice of claim) or petition (petition proceeding) is “commenced” by one party against (usually) other parties as this relates to the practice of law. {When the party being served the petition responds to that petition by response to petition they are “defending” against that proceeding. The documents then filed by the petitioner to achieve orders sought constitute a “prosecution” of the “commencement” document}.
638. That in Lang Michener v Fabian, Henry J stipulated in his Reasons the grounds for vexatious proceeding as “1. The bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue that has already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction” and “In determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the Court must look back at the history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action”; and “the failure of the person instituting the proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious”.
639. That at page 5 para 18 of the Law Societies “application” cum “petition” (aka notice of claim by inference of Hinkson CJ's “plaintiff” description (sarcasm with emphasis)), Michael Kleisinger referring to himself at all times as “Compliance Officer” (acting apparently in the public interest) writes: “On January 21, 2014 , Mr. Robbins delivered a fax to the Law Society stating that he intended to sue the Law Society with respect to the alleged “persistent efforts in misrepresenting the Reasons of Justice Grauer. In an accompanying letter addressed to the Law Society, the BC Court and others, he wrote: “(We) will be taking action the necessary steps with further notice to amend those relevant actions to include all of the parties included herein as respondents or defendants where each status is applicable. No party or court is off the table).”
640. That, I verily believe that this communication to the Law Society would not satisfy the criteria established in Lang Michener as it purports to provide Notice to the Law Society, which instead of properly regarding it as is its function and role as a public body acting allegedly in the public interest, not only ignored but instead instituted what I verily believe to be its own vexatious proceeding, including intentional breach of the civil rules in misapplying court procedure by using false statements filed in a court registry to fraudulently obtain a hearing date , and thereafter securing the engagement of a justice, the chief justice in fact, in order to obtain an order of the court.
641. That the prospect of a lawsuit is not within the parameters of the criteria of looking back as determined by Henry J in Lang Michener, and amendments as presented in my notice to the Law Society of BC, but is forward thinking consideration, as it has not happened.
642. That the only forward looking statutes available to the Law Society of BC occur under the section 85 provisions of the Legal Profession Act and these provisions 85(1)(a), 85(5) and 85(6) were all invoked in the original petition and amended petition of the Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins commenced at Vancouver courthouse BC Supreme Court under docket S111171 February 24, 2011, heard and dismissed by Justice Grauer.
643. That I note in the case between Law Society of BC v Parsons before Fisher J. that Michael Kleisinger (again) on behalf of the Law Society seeks injunction through the section 85 provisions (and not through subsection 15(5) and is successful in that case, where he and Elizabeth Lyall of International law firm Fasken Martineau had failed against me.
644. That at paragraph 20 of Part 3 Legal Basis Mr. Kleisinger writes: “While the injunction prohibits Mr. Robbins from commencing and prosecuting claims (vexatious or otherwise) on behalf of others, the Law Society brings this application in the public interest to achieve the following aims: “(i) To prevent Mr. Robbins from initiating future frivolous, meritless or vexatious proceedings”, and (ii) “To prevent Mr. Robbins from reinstituting or reviving frivolous, meritless or vexatious proceedings through amendments.”
645. That on its face, not only is the method of originating this action of the Law Society ultra vires the BC Court Civil Rules, the basis upon which it is brought is without merit. Proof of vexatious proceedings are based on a history of fact. No reasonable person armed with the facts could make prediction about a persons future court filing actions, if his past actions had no merited consideration of such forward thinking provisions of the section 85 legislation of the Legal Profession Act laid before Justice Grauer legitimately under S111171? In addition in light of (ii) how is it possible that proposed amendments to an ongoing action before a court if those amendments had not been filed?
646. That in terms of the Costs element of the so called vexatious 'litigant' (defamation) procedure order, the only outstanding costs under consideration at the time this “application” “petition” were owed to the Law Society, and were not actually finally concluded until July 8th, 2015 and no other costs orders were outstanding and owing to Glen Robbins to any person under any court order.
647. That the Law Society of BC “application” filed by Michael Kleisinger January 24, 2014 seeking vexatious litigant status was I believe intended as a sword for defence of the Law Society of BC and its members, including Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Michael Kleisinger the Board of Governors of the Law Society, the Attorney General, and Justice Fenlon, who if discovered by honest adjudicative inquiry would no doubt lead to serious compensatory damages.
648. That I believe the only way to actually defend against he legal 'beating' that would surely confront them was to enlist the support of certain justices without scruple or integrity, who would be willing to ignore the Reasons of other justices.
649. That the original matter of Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins was concluded by the Supreme Court of Canada under docket 35302 under dismissal order September 19, 2013 which order included an extension for time for filing the leave to appeal application.
650. That section 52 of the Supreme Court of Canada Act stipulates that: “52. The Court shall have and exercise exclusive ultimate appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction within and for Canada, and the Judgment of the Court is, in all cases, final and conclusive.”
651. That at the time of the bringing of the “application” by the Law Society of BC this element of the case had not finally and officially been decided until July 8, 2015 an estimated 17 months after the bringing of the “application” “petition” on January 24, 2014 under S111171.
652. That I verily believe that on January 24, 2014 Michael Kleisinger willfully filed an action with Trial Scheduling under Vancouver courthouse file No.: S111171 that he knew had been concluded by the Supreme Court of Canada, and further knew was brought by way of application and not originating petition as it ought to have been brought under new file number given that he was seeking final orders of the court.
653. That I verily believe that Mr. Kleisinger, the Law Society of BC and the Chris Hinkson in his capacity as chief justice of the courts, and Law Society members such as Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis and Justice Fenlon serve as a greater threat to the public interest than I, using the courts as their own 'playground' for making orders they please without any recognition that I, my wife and mother in law are all members of the public.
654. That I verily believe that my statements before Dyer J. in Provincial Court in hearing involving Robert Ellis (following the order of Grauer J) that 'it wouldn't be too long before court judgments occur in people's basements' were prophetic to the incidences described herein.
655. That in February of 2014 I wrote to (new) Chief Justice Hinkson concurrent with the efforts being made by Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society with regard to events occurring under BCSC H130330 in particular the false statements regarding the order of Justice Grauer made in relation to subsection 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act (BC) in order dated October 3, 2011, and the forged/fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION of Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation conceived, produced and signed by Law Society members Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis for filing May 31st, 2013 in Justice Fenlon's name for May 9th, 2013, and do further declare that I received a letter in response from Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson sent through Sue Smolen Court Manager asserting that it wasn't appropriate to involve Justice Grauer.
656. That the Order Made After Application before Justice Hinkson on ex parte basis March 3, 2014 describes the Law Society of British Columbia as the “plaintiff” which I believe is further evidence of the absolute purposeful haste and willful circumventing of due process and fraudulent use of the courts procedure by Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society to achieve his nefarious aims, in conjunction with or the acquiescence of the duties which should have properly apprehended the Chief Justice.
657. That I assert the Requisition filed February 13, 2014 evidences the 1st occasion under this procedure that the bona fide File No.: is used. That I believe this is done on the basis that the Chief Justice will only see the matter pertaining to the Requisition (and not to the underlying documents preceding, which if read, as they ought to be (given BC Court Services is claiming that is where the inappropriate filings will be discovered)).
658. That (once again) I note the style of cause features The Law Society of British Columbia as a petitioner and myself as respondent. That in fact, the law society is an applicant and I am a respondent applicant. The Law Society seeks hearing March 3, 2014. This reveals that the Law Society of BC intended to have this matter heard prior to my application to be added as party for original hearing date March 20, 2014.
659. That Michael Kleisinger attends to the hearing March 3, 2014 before Chief Justice Hinkson under S111171 (which the Chief Justice is aware is linked to the Reasons for Judgment and Orders of Justice Grauer October 3, 2015) and the Court (Chief Justice) makes ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION including “1. The application filed January 24, 2014 is adjourned to 9:45 a.m., on March 21, 2014 at the Vancouver Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC.” & “2. The application to be heard on March 21, 2014 is peremptory on Glen P. Robbins.”
660. That I reference the letter of March 4, 2014 of Michael Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of British Columbia evidencing (2nd) Requisition which notes that Chief Justice Hinkson is “seized of the matter”. That I note in cover letter and in Requisition II, the Style of Cause directs the party Law Society of British Columbia is denoted as a Petitioner but in all other places refers to the matter as an application.
661. That in Requisition II item 3 refers to the matter as “the petitioner's application” 3 the petitioners application & at item 4, once again “the petitioner”. That I confirm that at no time was this application undertaken by the Law Society of British Columbia as a petition.
662. That this matter is originated as an application and not a petition, and that I verily believe Chief Justice Hinkson knew full well that the procedure was improper and in clear violation of the rules of court and fair consideration in the administration of justice, and that he undertook to participate out of colluded effort with the Law Society of BC and compliance officer Michael Kleisinger.
663. That Chief Justice Hinkson facilitated by virtue of making Order March 3, 2014 for trial March 21, 2014 the hearing of an interlocutory application as a petition. That the Chief Justice permitted the hearing of an application he knew or ought to know were for final orders, when the procedure undertaken (rule 8 application) did not permit a final order.
664. That Chief Justice Hinkson granted order March 21st, 2014 to the Law Society of BC, which he knew or ought to have known to be in contravention of the proper administration of justice, and further ordered costs for that order as well as costs for an application in response of mine, which also was ultra vires the courts authority to do.
665. That Hinkson CJ did not hear my cross application on the basis that the style of cause featured the office of the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court as respondent.
666. That Hinkson CJ referred to my including the 'office of the chief justice' as party in response to including him (personally) as a respondent in the proceedings.
667. That I verily believe that if Hinkson CJ was of the state of mind that he was a respondent to an action, then he ought to be of similar mind to recuse himself.
668. That I verily believe that given that Hinkson CJ did not review the file he had recused himself of, and not in sufficient capacity of state of mind to handle this matter.
669. That Chief Justice Hinkson completely ignored due process and the BC Civil Rules to assist his friends at the Law Society of BC and the Attorney Generals' Office without any regard to me as if he is somehow better than me, when the evidence shows he clearly is not.
670. That under section 65 (2) of the Judges Act Recommendation to Minister (2) “Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of (a)age or infirmity,(b) having been guilty of misconduct,(c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or (d) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office,the Council, in its report to the Minister under subsection (1), may recommend that the judge be removed from office.”
671. That 65 2 (a) “age” does not apply to Hinkson CJ, however I verily believe from information I have received that Chris Hinkson may have residual issues relating to the death of his wife and the circumstances that occurred therein, and further believe that if this is not valid that subsection (c) and section 65 (1) applies as this relates to the matter of S111171.
672. That I verily believe those provisions of the Judges Act would apply to Fenlon J. for her conduct to this point in this evidence, but I intend to further add to this inquiry to prove my case under the Judges Act.
673. That I verily Justice Arnold Bailey is also guilty of contravention of the same provisions as Hinkson CJ and Fenlon J. (see file BCSC 150326 New Westminster).
674. That I note from the British Columbia Court Services grid the following: That item 21 (a proper petition filing would be item 1) and item 22 are 'Affidavits of Personal Service & Ordinary Service'. The latter is email service which was not properly function and no personal service occurred of the originating application. That item 24 including 17 as amends is not a document I ever received.
675. That my application response of March 18, 2014 was served on the Law Society of BC, the BC Attorney General's office, the Chief Justice of British Columbia and was considered by Hinkson CJ at trial hearing.
676. That on September 20, 2013 Michael Kleisinger writes me under Reference: “Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins” in relation to taxation of bill of costs.
677. That on November 13, 2013 Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC writes to me under Reference of Law Society of British Columbia and the costs bill he wants to collect on. At paragraph 2 he references the order of Mr. Justice Grauer including references of such detail as “post judgment interest”.
678. Within the correspondence of November 13, 2013 Mr Kleisinger includes ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION of The Honourable Justice Grauer of Monday, October 3, 2011 from the originating petition of the Law Society of BC filed February 24, 2011.
679. That within the correspondence of November 13, 2013 Mr. Kleisinger includes a Certificate of Costs in relation to costs received from the BC Court of Appeal date stamped January 31, 2013.
680. That within the correspondence of November 13, 2013 Mr. Kleisinger includes a Certificate of Costs from the Supreme Court of Canada Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada under seal of that court and dated “this 5th day of November 2013.”
681. That the Supreme Court of Canada docket 35302 from BCSC S111171 (the Grauer J order) extended an objection of taxation of costs until July 2015 (supra).
682. That when Michael Kleisinger and Law Society of British Columbia filed a rule 8 application to Trial Scheduling at BC Supreme Courthouse 800 Smithe Street on January 24, 2014 I believe he was with targeted malice acting: (a) in contempt of my rights to be protected by the fulsomeness of the Grauer J order and its Reasons & judicial comity, res judicata legal concepts &/or intentional criminal malfeasance/nonfeasance; (b) in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada and its absolute final and conclusive powers; (c) in contempt of the BC Court of Appeal; (d) in contempt of the BC Court Civil Rules; (e) in contempt of the Legal Professions Act, in contempt of his oath as an officer of the court, (f) in contempt of his capacity as an 'attorney general', & (g) in contempt of the laws under the Criminal Code of Canada.
683. That I verily believe that Chief Justice Hinkson during the time he was involved in the matter before him initiated as interlocutory application, and given the documents filed in S111171, was deliberately acting against me with targeted active malice in conjunctive cooperation with Michael Kleisinger including: (a) in contempt of my rights to be protected by the fulsomeness of the Grauer J order and its Reasons & judicial comity, re judicata legal concepts &/or intentional criminal malfeasance/nonfeasance, (b) in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada and its final and conclusive powers; (c) in contempt of the BC Court of Appeal; (d) in contempt of the BC Court Civil Rules; in contempt of constitutional oath in upholding law and the interests of justice; (e) in contempt of the laws under the Criminal Code of Canada.
684. That relative to what I believe are criminally indictable actions taken by Mr. Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society, and on behalf I believe of his efforts and the efforts of Chief Justice Hinkson to cover up or interrupt potential revelations I intended to make regarding what I further believe to be criminal conduct of Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, and the misconduct of Justice Fenlon in relation to events under BCSC H130330 involving myself, Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, I wish at this time to reflect briefly upon how this started in context of the original petition under S111171 heard by Grauer J.
685. Under petition to the court dated stamped February 24, 2011 “Petition To The Court” “VLC-S-S-111171 (BCSC S111171) the originating action which links H130330 heard May 9, 2013 and the actions of Michael Kleisinger & Law Society of BC & Hinkson CJ to orders made April 10, 2014 the Law Society of BC under “Claim of the Petitioner”, Part 1: Order Sought @ 1. “The Respondents (LSBC), Glen P. Robbins, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from representing himself as a lawyer.”

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