Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen Robbins set to publish the evidence of largest malfeasance and misfeasance case in English speaking country--featuring Justice Lauri Fenlon, Chief Justice Chris Hinkson, Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis Law Society of BC, Federal Gov of Canada, BC Prov G
  Feb 21, 2016

Abridged outline (prior to affidavit)
As provided to original recipient at FOI Law Society of British Columbia (actually a corporation and not a registered society)
Law Society of British Columbia 845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 4Z9 Attention: Ms. Jackie Drozdowski – Information and Privacy Officer Reference: Acknowledge of Michael Kleisinger letters, & matters of boxes ordered pertaining to John Motiuk Law Society of BC, Christopher Hinkson QC—BCHRT – Google pedophile defamation.
I have received you letter of March 1, 2016 referencing Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Request – your file no. 50-2016-00006.
There are some elements of our conversation which were not included in your letter or otherwise not fully considered.
First, I confirm the information relating to John Motiuk, my lawyer through 1999 and 2000. The information I am seeking pertains more than to just the possibility that Mr. Motiuk “continuing to act on my a time when..Mr. Motiuk may not have been authorized to practice law.”
You already have information which proves Mr. Motiuk was being investigated by the Law Society of British Columbia and while Chris Hinkson QC was his lawyer concurrent with events already proved that reveal that Mr. Motiuk failed in his duty to me including (a) failing to file submissions in joinder matter at BCHRT; (b) participating in a hearing when unauthorized to practice law (plus a minus a few days); (c) acting as legal counsel while mentally ill.
People do not become bi polar overnight. I have evidence I believe will reveal that Mr. Motiuk may have suffered from this since the late 1970's.
Your letter speaks of the “large number of records that must be retrieved and searched to process the (sic) request” relating to Mr. Motiuk's dealing with the Law Society concurrent with his acting for me, and to my information provided that when Mr. Motiuk finally informed me of his bi polar depression at or about February-March 2000 and his problems with the Law Society his explanation was in part blamed on his lawyer who he says told him not to tell me.
I understand that Mr. Motiuk is deceased now, and this information needs to be independently collaborated to determined what his lawyer(s) or the Law Society of BC knew or ought to have known. The result for me was disastrous, being listed on Google website as a pedophile for 3 years at a business cost in the millions of dollars.
As you know, and confirmed in our telephone conversation but not in your letter you would check with Hearings Manager to confirm Chis Hinkson QC's (as he was then) relationship to this information as Mr. Motiuk's lawyer. I knew Mr. Motiuk not to be a malicious man – though I was not aware of his mental illness. One theory I am pursuing is that Mr. Motiuk was manipulated through his illness to take the action he did on my claim by either the Law Society, his lawyer(s) or both.
The date when the joinder submissions were due coincides with the time adjournments were ending and at the same time a certificate was issued to Mr. Motiuk. The Reasons of Tribunal Member Judy Parrack provided a detailed chronology. [As you know, a decision was made on joinder which predated the dates ordered by Ms. Parrack for the submissions relating to that decision].
I informed you that I filed lawsuit in 2001 for damages relating to this matter left undefended by the Government of British Columbia. In 2013 I wrote to inform the AG that I intended to seek Default Judgment on the matter. This letter was sent at the same time matters were going on at BC Supreme Court of British Columbia relating to our family home.
I am concluding a forensic of evidence for affidavit in criminal complaint relating to a number of lawyers including Ronald Bakonyi of Bakonyi and Company (client: Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation “CMIC” & Peet & Cowan Financial Services “PCFS”; Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg (client: BMO Bank of Montreal), Michael Kleisinger (“compliance officer Law Society of B.C.), Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon (former associate lawyer with Fasken Martineau law firm), Elizabeth Lyall senior partner (Queen Counsel) Fasken Martineau, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson (formerly John Motiuk's lawyer).
Mr. Hinkson was moved from BC Court of Appeal to BC Supreme Court Justice. According to the Globe and Mail newspaper this occurred about November 8, 2013, just weeks after my letter to the BC Mortgage Brokers Association providing notice of intention to pursue a class action lawsuit.
Here then is a list of some of the events that are identified in affidavit complaint due out soon.
1. Ronald Bakonyi knowingly filed petitioner with affidavit which purposefully fails to include triable issues relating to unconsionable loan agreement with criminal interest of 98.7% (Company A), rinsed through a second company (Company B) with same owners and fraudulent mortgage registration of interest based on accounting from original agreement with first company. (BCSC H130330);
2. Ronald Bakonyi & Robert Ellis knowingly files a notice of hearing document in court registry (H130330) on April 15, 2013 containing false statements. Evidence in support of his knowledge is contained in Transcript of Proceedings of foreclosure hearing before Fenlon J May 9, 2013; The notice of hearing is not received by respondents;
3. Mr. Bakonyi and Robert Ellis make statements at hearing relating to matters of right of audience and misrepresent the Reasons for Judgment and Order of Mister Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011 (BCSC S111171), declaring their position that section 15(5) orders deny me a right of audience at the foreclosure hearing on May 9, 2013 (H130330);
4. Justice Fenlon hearing the matter May 9, 2013 is made aware of her former employer at Fasken Martineau professional law firm Elizabeth Lyall's role as lead counsel for Law Society of BC (S111171) which produced the order of Grauer J. (does not recuse herself);
5. Justice Fenlon acknowledges on two occasions in Transcript that she is bound by the Grauer J. order but continues to insist that section 15(5) (as it was prior to Royal Assent May 12, 2012 of BC Leg.) relates to a person being denied the right to speak. Fenlon J is repeatedly told that the order forms part of the Reasons of Judgment and fails (purposefully I believe) to read the 14 page Reasons during afternoon recess.
6. My affidavit will accuse Fenlon J of being “planted” in that hearing.
7. On May 31st, 2013 Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis file an Order Made After Application in relation to the preliminary issue of my right to speak and the 'errors' made by Fenlon J. There is no application, no evidence, it is not a substantive matter.
8. My wife and I do not become aware of this forged/fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION until Conduct of Sale hearing December 9, 2013 before Master Tokarek who from notes as desk “210” that “his hands are tied” because of the May 31, 2013 fraud introduced at hearing December 9, 2010.
9. On April 7, 2014 Mr. Bakonyi makes application for vacant possession of subject property before Kloegman J. I attend with co owner of the property, my wife's mother in law Frana Matich to hearing.
10. My wife's application for leave to appeal relating to the order nisi (extension of time for filing) is accepted March 20, 2014 (S.C.C. Docket 35772).
11. Kloegman J at hearing becomes aware that I have an application before the court (H130330) to be added as party for April 23rd, 2014, while my wife Ita Robbins et al have hearing of appeal of conduct of sale order set for April 24, 2014.
12. Justice Kloegman makes stay order on the conduct of sale order valid until April 30, 2014. (Court dates at Trial Scheduling cannot be obtained until first week of the subsequent month at Vancouver courthouse).
13. Ronald Bakonyi attends ex parte to April 23rd and April 24th, 2014 hearing dates and obtains orders dismissing application to be added as party; dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order and vacant possession order during the stay period ordered by Kloegman J (April 30, 2014).
14. Ronald Bakonyi does not provide order of Kloegman J he is given custody of which fails to include the stay order for April 30, 2014.
15. On July 10, 2014 Ronald Bakonyi obtains writ of possession order sends two bailiffs who bring two RCMP officers (without justification of attendance) to our home. During an ensuing discussion I inform the bailiffs that ought to phone their company managers or legal counsel as they don't have lawful authority to make forcible entry (or do anything else for that matter). I give the same direction to the RCMP who cannot justify their attendance and who do not make any effort to contact superiors or legal counsel.
16. That the lead bailiff (if there is such a thing) instead of phoning his superiors or legal counsel phones Ronald Bakonyi and speaks with him. The bailiff makes offer that if my wife and I write an email to him immediately granting his conduct of sale and agree to not sue he will direct the bailiffs and the RCMP to leave. I refuse the offer (my wife is too distraught).
17. I am then directed by the RCMP (detained) and forced to stand on the street while our possessions and house are taken.
18. Beginning September 2013 Michael Kleisinger provides me with correspondence relating to taxation amounts involved with BCSC (S111171) (the Grauer J matter at the center of this under S.C.C. Docket 35302). He was 2nd chair with Elizabeth Lyall at hearing September 2011, handled appeal at BCCA before single justice and later before a Division of that Court. My appeal of costs is dismissed. (I am never informed that section 15(5) has been amended by Royal Assent May 2012 following Grauer J's castigation of the “clumsy” legislation – at any time). [n.b. The matter before Fenlon J ought to have considered the new amended legislation].
19. Mr. Kleisinger had to know the decision made by the SCC under 35302was “final and conclusive” to S111171.
20. The SCC docket 35302 Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC reveals that leave is not formally closed until July 2015.
21. As you can see from the correspondence sent to me from Michael Kleisinger a January 6, 2014 letter features a threat by him that I may be acting in contempt of the Grauer J. A civil contempt order can have criminal implications. Mr. Kleisinger knows he is lying but I believe is himself acting in contempt of the order by making the threat just 3 weeks before hearing before Saunders JA on January 28, 2014 relating to application to seek an extension of time for filing leave to appeal of the order nisi.
22. No reference is made by Michael Kleisinger at any time in relation to vexatious proceedings order (litigant defamation) in any correspondence.
23. The January 6, 2014 Kleisinger letter notes my letter to the Law Society of BC threatening litigation against it. This follows a complaint filed by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich including Transcript Proceeding evidence and other in August 2013 in relation to Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis conduct and court filings. The Law Society complaints makes decision not to pursue complaint some months later.
24. As you can see in late January 2014 Michael Kleisinger files a rule 8 application under File No. S11171 (he cleverly forgets one number or doesn't include any file number in correspondence) to Trial Scheduling. A rule 8 application be used in matters where final orders are involved. The BC Court Rules have authority over all enactments including the Supreme Court Act (BC) containing provisions relating to “vexatious proceedings”.
25. The documents of this period reveal the incremental cunning of Mr. Kleisinger commencing documents (which ought to have been filed as originating petition), utilizing BC Court Services conjunctive policy of 'smile and file' and 'we are not lawyers' policy with initial application seeking hearing before Chambers Assize Project. This application is not served.
26. Later on, Mr. Kleisinger refers to rule 8 application (different response periods for rule 8 application and petition response). He attends to ex parte hearing with Chris Hinkson (current chief justice) March 3, 2014 and obtains date for Trial March 21, 2014. Mr. Kleisinger knows he has obtained this hearing (as my wife's complaint in August 2013 had asserted about Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis). Documents reveal Chris Hinkson CJ is not sure if the parties are plaintiffs or applicants or petitioners.
27. At hearing provides no proof of vexatious proceedings, Chief Justice acknowledges he has never seen a case where a person like me has be so charged for defending claims. He refused to hear my application (still unheard), nor acknowledge jurisdictional issues for him hearing an application in a matter under BCSC S111171 already dismissed by a Division of the Supreme Court of Canada.
28. Hinkson CJ asserts that it is going to take a long time to go through the evidence, he is busy and reserves judgment. The next day Sue Smolen estimates the time for a decision could be 60-90 days.
29. Hinkson CJ makes order April 10, 2014 declaring me in breach of section 18. Hinkson CJ has possession of the file including previous petition, response to petition, amended petition, amended response to petition, binders etc relating to S111171 before Grauer J. He had to have known the entire effort was irregular and a perpetrated “miscarriage of justice” by Michael Kleisinger motivated by “targeted malice”.
30. Hinkson CJ's April 10, 2014 order is included as evidence at ex parte hearings April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014 before Justices Smith and Davies and referenced along with the forged/fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION. One of the justices says that had I showed up on either day (with a stay order in place...?) he would not have heard from me based on the order of Hinkson CJ.
31. I verily believe my theory of criminal conspiracy (unlawful conduct conspiracy) has true form now.
32. In August 2014 myself, my wife Ita and mother in law make application under what was originally intended as counterclaim to what ought to have been a notice of claim for triable issues at New Westminster BC Supreme Court the appropriate registry for all filing given its proximity to us under the rules (BCSC 149328). At the top of the application I include the order of Hinkson CJ (no matter how it was obtained). The hearing date is March 26, 2015.
33. I serve the application under BCSC 149328 which includes pleadings to amend the document to add parties and to include an order sought for punitive damages. I do not receive any response to application but out of an abundance of caution file requisition to adjourn hearing including affidavit March 19, 2015. Concurrent with this Mr. Bakonyi on behalf of his client files application to dismiss against his client but does not serve it.
34. Hinkson CJ files order March 20, 2014 under BCSC S111171 (Vancouver registry) (where my wife and mother in law are not parties) in New Westminster courthouse under BCSC 149328 effectively kicking out our documents.
35. Some time in April 2014 I allege that Hinkson CJ has the New Westminster Registry back date an Order to March 25, 2014 under BCSC 149328 nullifying my/our application and requisition for adjournment thus enabling Ronald Bakonyi in his efforts to obtain dismissal order on March 26, 2014 going to some lengths to quash a requisition to adjourn a hearing.
36. It is my theory that Hinkson CJ as he was then a Queens Counsel lawyer was the person who instructed John Motiuk to continue to act as legal counsel and to not disclose his medical condition in order to assist the BCHRT win an unwinnable case, and that when I looked to pursue a default judgment in my defamation case used his office to help the Law Society of BC ruin me and my family.
37. I would add that in December 2014 (again no service of documents) Mr. Bakonyi obtains an order for sale of our property from (who else) Justice Fenlon for an amount at least $250,000 below market.
38. In November 2013 under BCSC 149328 we served Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation with Notice to Mediate. Mr. Bakonyi refused to comply. During proceedings before the SCC we made without prejudice offer to Mr. Bakonyi that we would accept an extension date on the fraudulent mortgage for July 2015.
39. Our property was recently sold by a Toronto person who originally purchased it through the Fenlon order of December 2014 with no money down and sold in late early 2016 for $1,200,000.
41. I note as well that under BCSC 149328 where WorkSafe BC and WCAT are defendants, a Notice to Mediate document was also refused by Corey Bargen legal counsel with the BC Attorney General and Justice Ministry (its own regulations).
42. I am also aware that the Law Society of BC is not a registered society but rather a legal corporation.
43. I inform you that I am seeking information through Access to Information of all payments made by the Government of British Columbia to professional law firms in the Province of British Columbia (save for those involving personal injury claims) over the past number of years. That information can be obtained directly from LSBC.
44. I inform you that I take the position that contingency fee agreements being used by members of your society are unconscionable.
You can readily see that the information in the boxes you are obtaining could provide important clues. I will be providing my criminal complaint with affidavit and extensive canvass of Martins Criminal Code particularly given the events with John Motiuk at BCHRT and the crown counsel will be provided with this letter as well as S.C.C. Submissions under stamp of law department.
I understand from speaking with Federal Court of Canada that there is no limit on damages available, and that from filings and Federal Justice Ministry that Superior Court Justices should be sued in their personal names. It is virtually impossible to 'kick out' claims involving misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance at early state of proceedings.
I also would add that in my application before Chief Justice Hinkson of March 21, 2015 the office of the BC Supreme Court Justice was included as respondent. His rationale for not hearing it was that he was personally named in the style of cause and could not be persuaded that he and the office are not one in the same. I say this as inference of common themes developing here particularly as it relates to Mr. Motiuk.
I appreciate your efforts to date and hope you now fully understand the implications of these boxes you are obtaining and work diligently toward the interests of justice.
Please be advised that while I will, at this time honour your letter as personal and confidential, my correspondence will not.

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