Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Sup Crt Canada est in R. v JF criminal conspiracy criteria for Glen Robbins subs against Christopher Hinkson CJ, Lauri Fenlon, R Bakoyi Cambridge R Ellis BM) Bank - will Ivan Henry be affected?
  Jan 21, 2016

(Question): Mr. Chief Justice, when your family was going through difficult issues relating to abuse including alcohol abuse, and the death of your wife by suicide, did you seek any professional help to ensure your own mental health was protected?
(Question): Mr. Chief Justice, during the period of time covering 1999 and 2000 while you were representing Mr. John Motiuk as legal counsel involving problems with the Law Society of BC and its awareness of his mental instability including bi polar depression, and the fact that he was not taking medication, did you at any time advise Mr. Motiuk not to inform Mr. Robbins of his difficulties with the Law Society of BC - ultimately resulting in the serious defamation against Mr. Robbins?
(Question): Mr. Chief Justice, can you explain to the jury why it was you accepted the Law Societies rule 8 interlocutory application for vexatious proceedings under a file number S111171 that was still before the Supreme Court of Canada involving subject matters relating to the Legal Profession Act?
(Question): Is is fair to say Mr. Chief Justice, that you purposefully and willfully conspired with the Law Society of BC to railroad Mr. Robbins through an abuse of your authority as chief justice, including an abuse of process in order to assist the Law Society of BC an organization you spent much of your private practice involving with, in order to facilitate the covering up of a forged/fraudulent order signed by lawyers Ronald Bakonyi for client Cambridge Mortgage and Robert Ellis for BMO Bank of Montreal, and further to cover up the apparent collusion of those two lawyers and Madame Justice Fenlon formerly of Fasken Martineau and past employer of her Elizabeth Lyall who was opposing counsel to Mr. Robbins in a related case?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, were you aware who Mr. Robbins was in March of 2014 prior to your rushing a hearing against him, as this pertained to you representing Mr. Motiuk in his professional misconduct matter, and his failure to properly represent Mr. Robbins in a BCHRT case which resulted in the erroneous defamation of Mr. Robbins?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice - did the trial you coordinated privately with the Law Society's Michael Kleisinger in March 2014 provide you with the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, that is, cover up your involvement in the 2000 defamation against him while adding a new one? Mr. Chief Justice is it fair to say you have acted or appeared to have acted with malice against Mr. Robbins?
(Question): Mr. Chief Justice - in your capacity as John Motiuks' lawyer in 1999 and 2000 relating to Law Society of BC oomplaints, can you explain to the jury what, if any, action either legal counsel or the law society undertakes under its mandate to protect the public, including Mr. Robbins, by notifying all clients of Mr. Motiuk of the issues before it?
(Question): Mr. Chief Justice investigations were undertaken by the Law Society of BC in 1997, 1999 and 2000 with respect to Mr. Motiuk. According to the Law Society Hearings Manager, you were John Motiuk's legal counsel during this period of time. Did you ever at any time through your law firm Guild Yule or any other professional law firm or in any other capacity as legal counsel contact my letter, or any other communication Mr. Robbins, a client of Mr. Motiuk's at BCHRT over this period of time?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, in your capacity as a trained lawyer and your experience as a Justice of the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeal, and now Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court...would you say that it was right and proper that clients of a lawyer under investigation with the Law Society of BC be contacted, particularly when it is imminent that Mr. Motiuk would undoubtedly be required to give an undertaking not to practice law as he did in November 1999?
(Question): In the Robbins matter at BCHRT during 1999 particularly, Mr. Motiuk as legal counsel for Mr. Robbins at Mr. Robbins direction opposed the joinder of the multiple complainants in favour of separate hearing because of inconsistent stories by the complainants in original complaints, affidavits and other affirmations of their complaints throughout the course of the process--would you as a professional person agree that Mr. Motiuk was not operating in the interest of his client, Mr. Robbins, by failing to provide submissions on the subject of joinder as directed by Tribunal Member Judy Parrick at or about April 1999?
(Question): Mr. Chief Justice, during a November 1999 hearing at BCHRT Mr. Motiuk engaged in representing Mr. Robbins at hearing relating to exchange of documents, after failing the previous spring to provide submission on issue of joinder, despite instructions to do so - all while Mr. Motiuk was not authorized to practice law. Would you say that Mr. Motiuk a lawyer admitted to be mentally ill suffering from depression and established as bi polar - and under investigation by the Law Society of BC was operating in Mr. Robbins best interests?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Robbins asserts in his mult million dollar claim filed May 8, 2001 that Mr. Motiuk did not inform him of his issues before the Law Society of BC including the fact that he was aware of investigations as early as 1997 and again in 1999 was issued a certificate by the Law Society in April 1999 at the exact same time he filed to make submissions as ordered by the Tribunal on the subject of joinder, and declared unauthorized to practice law in November 1999, --- until February 2000. Mr. Robbins claims in evidence that when asked why Mr. Motiuk failed to make submissions on joinder and then attended to hearings when he had no authority to do so - Mr. Motiuk says his lawyer instructed him to do so. His lawyer on the record over this period is you Mr. Chief Justice.....did you in fact direct Mr. Motiuk not to tell Mr. Robbins in order to hurt his defence at BCHRT?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice don't you find it odd that Mr. Motiuk fails to take instructions from Mr. Robbins on the very important procedural aspect of joinder (separating the complainants) on one hand and then attends at a later date when he is officially unauthorized to do so?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice - The Law Society of BC's mandate is protect the public from circumstances such as occurred with Mr. Robbins as a result of Mr. Motiuk's conduct and behaviour. Would you say that the Law Society of BC performed its mandate well in this circumstance involving Mr. Robbins?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, the Decision of Tribunal Member Judy Parrick clearly establishes that in 1998 Mr. Motiuk refuses the Tribunal's suggestion of joinder on Mr. Robbins instruction, and then a year later after numerous adjournments, when the subject comes up again, Mr. Motiuk fails to make submissions on joinder resulting in the matter being dismissed, when in fact, no application was ever made in the first place. As a professional lawyer and later a justice of the courts, would you say that Mr. Robbins charter rights to a fair hearing were not respected?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, who would you say is most responsible for Glen Robbins being erroneously defamed as a pedophile on the Internet for over 3 years: (a) the BC Human Rights Tribunal for not providing fair procedures and hearings, (b) John Motiuk for failing his client and not representing Mr. Robbins interests properly, or (c) you as his legal counsel operating in conjunction with the Law Society of BC?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, would you say it was unusual that you granted the Law Society of BC an ex parte order to proceed under Trial Scheduling to hear a rule 8 interlocutory application under file No.: S111171 for hearing a section 18 BC Supreme Court Act vexatious litigant matter, when that file No,: involved a previous petitioner before the court, which was before the Supreme Court of Canada?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, how was it that you took charge of a matter, which had it gone through the ordinary process of Trial Scheduling would have taken at least 3 months to get hearing, but instead, obtained a 3 week hearing because you were chief justice?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice - is it fair to say that you had a bias against Mr. Robbins even prior to hearing any submissions?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice - isn't it fair to say that in fact, you remembered Mr. Robbins from your time in 1999 and 2000 as legal counsel for John Motiuk and became aware of Mr. Robbins intention to filed a Default Judgment on a $30 million defamation lawsuit filed in 2001 left undefended by the BC Government and Attorney General, and in cooperation and collusion with the Law Society of BC saw you chance to cover up your complicity and liability in the original defamation matter by adding a new defamation of vexatious litigant on top of that one?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice - would you agree that Mr. Motiuk's management of Mr. Robbins quasi criminal case before the BCHRT in 1999 and 2000 was unprofessional and would you further agree that the Law Society of BC should be made to pay for damages to Mr. Robbins as a result?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, in your capacity as John Motiuks' lawyer and in light of the quasi criminal harassment case against Mr. Robbins for allegedly staring at a number of complainants, that the Criminal Code of Canada excluded staring as criminal harassment?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, in your experience as a litigator, a lawyer, a justice and chief justice do you believe a case could exist where one man stared at 4 different women for over a year and one half each and every day and that no independent witness, other than each of the complainants could collaborate this happening even once?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, as a justice of the courts who must defend the Constitution of Canada and Charter Rights - do you believe its fair that Mr. Robbins publishing business earning $2.5 million per year as a consequence of legal counsel mentally incompetent, 'crazy' by any other name, on the basis of this type of complaint against him? Do you support that he should have his name attached to the brand pedophile for a period of three years?
(Question) Mr. Chief Justice, as lawyer for John Motiuk, Queen Counsel lawyer in the Province of British Columbia did you collaborate with the Law Society of BC to ensure that Mr. Robbins did NOT receive a fair and proper defence at BC Human Rights Tribunal?

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2021