Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Vol VI -Canada's largest white collar crime - BC lawyers-Jus Wilson Raybould - J. Trudeau, CJ Council, How bad did BC lawyers & app justices con the Supreme Court of Canada?
  Jun 01, 2016

487. That I verily believe that on May 9, 2013 neither Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis or Lauri Ann Fenlon (in her capacity as Constitutionally appointed justice of the BC Supreme Court), has an honest believe in the lawfulness of her actions and if either of them possessed such an honest belief in their mind then they are not fit and were not fit to be acting as officers of the court, attorneys general and in particularly certainly not a BC Superior Court justice.
488. That I verily believe that the evidence of Justice Fenlon giving primacy of authority to a provincial legislation of the Legal Profession Act over the Constitution must be concluded absent any determination of willful wrongdoing of abject judicial incompetence.
489. In the “Three Rivers” case Lord Millett “established that it is not always easy to see the ulterior motive required to prove the “second limb” and revealed that “such a motive must be inferred from the fact that the defendant did not have an honest belief in the lawfulness of her actions. A public officer who acts with disregard for the lawfulness of her action is effectively presumed to be acting for reasons other than the public good.”
490. “Three Rivers” “also established ground for establishing the element (sic) of proximity (between the plaintiff and defendant) via Chamberlain, supra notes 3 & 191) “where a “pre-existing legal right” existed.
491. That I verily believe the Reasons for Judgment of Mister Justice Grauer made October 3, 2011 establish to “proximity” and a “pre-existing legal right”, given the multiple times in the court transcript that Justice Fenlon referred to Justice Grauer's order as binding.
492. That I verily believe that on May 9th, 2013 and again on or about December 4th, 2014 (sale order of Honeysuckle) Justice Fenlon's actions maliciously impugned the good reputation of a fellow Justice Christopher Grauer.
493. “The Court in Chamberlain established to be able to sustain an action upon this basis a plaintiff must not only show damage for the abuse; he must also show that he was a member of the public; or one of the members of the public, to whom the holder of the office owed a duty not to commit the particular abuse complained of” [1973] V.R. 715 (S.C).
494. “In Three Rivers” “the plaintiffs were required to establish” “an antecedent legal right or interest” and “the Court of Appeal agreed” “finding that the notion of proximity should have a significant part to play in the tort of misfeasance.... “all the successful claims for misfeasance in public office...were concerned with direct and proximate relationship between the plaintiff and the public office. The directness and proximity of the relationship was mirrored in the directness and inevitability or near inevitability of the loss suffered.”
495. That I believe the false submissions made about me in relation to the orders of Grauer J. of Oct. 3, 2011 at hearing May 9, 2013, and the actions and statements made by Fenlon J. also on that day, including the subsequent Order Made After Application, add up to an entire picture of me having standing or perceived to have standing which would presume given that this order forgery was later signed (after the dust settled and the house (the loot) was in the bag), by Fenlon J. that she was by inference of her participation recognizing my standing though not a party by virtue of having heard submissions on it and later signing the forged order.
496. That I believe the Reasons of Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011 (BCSC S111171) were antecedent to the matter before Justice Fenlon under BCSC H130330 involving “CMIC” and BMO Bank of Montreal and their respective legal counsel, Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis as a general cause of action later accelerated by my political comments in relation to other matters
497. “However, the “House of Lords” concluded that the element of “proximity” and “duty” was not essential to a misfeasance claim.”
498. “The Privy Council in Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong and Davis v Radcliffe established in a misfeasance a duty of care was not required to be proved.”
499. “The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Odhavji Estate established the main issue in misfeasance was the type of conduct that could form the basis of claim.” “Was it limited to abuse of powers or could it also include a breach of statutory duty?”
500. “In the Odhavji case it was alleged that police officer's failed to cooperate with the requirement Special Investigation Unit (SIU) investigation of the shooting of Odhavji.”
501. “The Ontario Court of Appeal through majority decision written by Borins J.A. is as follows: “Although it is common ground that the defendant...are public officers, they were not engaged in the exercise of power during the time the S.I.U was conducting its investigation of the shooting.”
502. “Feldman J.A. dissented,”concluding that “[a]n attempt to depict a power and a duty as mutually exclusive concepts is ultimately a semantic exercise that ignores the close connection between them.” “In her view, there was no principled reason to distinguish between a power and a duty; adding....”many of the leading decisions, including Roncorelli, involved situations where the public officer had acted in excess of his powers and therefore could not be said to have involved in the exercise of a statutory power in Supra note 34 @ 207”.
503. That I verily believe the BCSC H130330 file involving Ronald Bakonyi on behalf of his client “CMIC”, Robert Ellis on behalf of BMO, with both legal counsel operating 'conjunctively' with the Law Society of British Columbia officer” Michael Kleisinger, and BC Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon, involves both clear “powers” and “duties”, but even if they are distinguishable their collective powers and duties were far superior to either of Ita Robbins, Frana Matich and myself.
504. That both lawyers had a power and a duty to the court (as is outlined from material governing them included in S.C.C. Submissions. Ronald Bakonyi had the additional power of the facility of BC Court Services (BC Attorney General and Justice Ministry), when he filed a false statement of notice of hearing on April 15, 2013 in collaboration with Robert Ellis who also signed the document knowing it would be filed in that 'criminal state' and thereafter their mutual minds must be considered to be under said operational condition.
505. That I verily believe that BC Court Services operating under the authority and oversight of the BC Attorney General and (then) BC Justice Robert Bauman as a consequence of Bauman CJ's directive that all documents filed in the court must be checked by court, knew or ought to have known that documents were not being checked, and when they were provided with the facts relating to the notice of hearing document bearing false statement they did nothing to correct the problem. At that point it was not merely a civil problem, it was a matter of a criminal offence, in hindsight part of a process of criminal actions intended to cover up a criminal loan agreement (PCFS”) and criminal fraudulent mortgage registration (“CMIC”).
506. That I verily believe that Justice Fenlon possessed all power of the Court (large “C” as opposed to small “c” court registry) over those persons attending before her on May 9th, 2013 including those officers Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis acting under particular authority of a public body the Law Society of BC, and she, and those officers acted outside their authority or power in commandeering, manipulating and reinventing the Reasons of Justice Grauer and consequential Order(s) made September 2011 and October 2011 in “a scheme intended to cover up the criminal loans and mortgages made by “PCFS” and “CMIC”, and to get revenge against me.
507. (The Michael Kleisinger Law Society – Chris Hinkson C.J. , link to the the criminal activity from May 9th, 2013, to the matter of Law Society of BC and the Christopher Grauer Reasons and order under BCSC S111171 “unlawful conduct conspiracy”):
508. That, other than dealing with matters pertaining to my appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pertaining to BCSC S11171 (The Reasons for Judgment and Orders of Justice Grauer) the 'first I heard' from Mr. Kleisinger of the Law Society of British Columbia since the Reasons of Justice Grauer are published (October 3, 2011), in relation to matters which might be grounded in the May9, 2013 matter under H130330 by letter January 6, 2014 or 27 months later.
509. That at no time from May 9, 2013 and the inquiry of Fenlon J. to Ronald Bakonyi in response to his submissions regarding a vexatious litigant order until January 6, 2014 is any comment or correspondence made to me by the Law Society of BC that would constitute a communication of matters conforming to criteria associated with the charge of vexatious procedure.
510. That at no time am I given notice or warning about concerns as to vexatious proceedings I might be involved in, and in fact the only 'warning' relates to the January 6, 2013 letter pertaining to Justice Grauer reasons under S111171 and section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
511. That I verily believe that any reasonable person armed with all the facts would conclude that I have not breached any provisions of the Legal Profession Act (B.C.), or the orders of Justice Grauer within that time period, and would thereafter also conclude that a threat of contempt is not a valid one intended to be coercive and or manipulative.
512. That I verily believe long time Law Society of B.C. Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger, knew or ought to have known that he was operating in a dishonest and corrupt manner in threatening me with contempt charges relating to the Grauer J. Reasons as these were considered by Fenlon J on May 9, 2013 and as presented by members Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, whom I verily believe Michael Kleisinger conspired with.
513. I further believe that Michael Kleisinger fully understood the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Grauer made under S111171, and to this day would further understand what they mean (and what they don't mean) pursuant to his participation as legal counsel in The Law Society of British Columbia v Parsons, 2015 BCSC 742 before the Honourable Justice Fisher April 22, 2015, and was operating in contempt of the Grauer J. order to a standard of criminality in any effort to make the Legal Professions Act as having more authority than the Constitution Act and Judges Act Canada.
514. That I draw legal inference to Mr. Kleisinger's involvement and awareness of the May 9th, 2013 petition for foreclosure under BCSC H130330 at page 8 (page 163 of submissions) at line 20 where The Court (Fenlon J.) asks Mr. Bakonyi with regards to myself: “There is no vexatious litigant order”?, to which Mr. Bakonyi responds: “That's the – Law Society is looking at that --”.
515. That I believe that either on or prior to May 9, 2013 Mr. Bakonyi has spoken to Michael Kleisinger regarding a vexatious proceedings order (in context of reading down the legislation I believe a vexatious litigant branding to be a willful defamation) in relation to me.
516. That not only did I serve my January 2nd application to be added as party under H130330 on the respondents “CMIC” and legal counsel Ronald Bakonyi, but I also served the documents upon BMO Bank of Montreal, as well as Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society of British Columbia, Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau (opposing 1st chair) and numerous other parties including the BC Attorney General, ensuring that 'it was no secret'.
517. That Ita Robbins and Frana Matich filed and served documents of Consent Order following my service upon them of the application to be added as party. This mutual consent order was served upon “CMIC' and legal counsel Ronald Bakonyi, BMO Bank of Montreal, as well as Michael Kleisinger, Elizabeth Lyall, and numerous other parties including the BC Attorney General ensuring that 'it was no secret'.
518. That the date for hearing of my application to be added as party was initially set for March 20, 2014 (one day before the eventual hearing date of the vexatious proceedings 'application'), which hearing date was 'oddly' adjourned by order of a justice on application by Ronald Bakonyi in order that 'Ronald might take holidays'.
519. That I verily believe that an application by a lawyer to take holidays and an order for same by a constitutional justice with costs to be super-pathetic.
520. That in letter dated January 6th, 2014 (not received by Email) and actually received January 10th, 2014 Michael Kleisinger wrote under Reference “Unlawful Practice of Law”. In this letter he wrote: “We understand that you have drafted and filed additional proceedings and an affidavit in Court of Appeal action No.: CA 40954 (the Notice of Appeal filed June 6, 2013)... “despite our various warnings that the Law Society considers your participation in that matter contrary to the order of Mr. Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011.”
521. That the BC Court of Appeal referenced by Michael Kleisinger was signed and filed by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich as appellants with myself as a respondent which is permitted under the BC Court of Appeal rules.
522. That (again) neither Mr. Kleisinger nor Ms Lyall of Fasken Martineau Queens Counsel political appointment from the Province of British Columbia, BC Attorney General and Justice Ministry and close political associate of the BC Liberal Party, appealed any aspect or order of the orders of Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011 under BC Supreme Court file No.: S111171.
523. That on February 22, 2016 Jackie Drozdowski Information and Privacy Officer wrote to me following my filing a request for documents from 'the public body Law Society of BC', and provided me with all correspondence made between to me from the Law Society of BC between the date of June 2013 and March 2014.
524. That beginning at the top of the January 6th, 2014 letter to me from Michael Kleisinger Compliance Officer, Law Society of British Columbia he writes: “We understand that you have drafted and filed additional pleadings and an affidavit in Court of Appeal No. CA 40954, despite our various warnings that the Law Society considers your participation in that matter contrary to the order of Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011.”
525. Half-way through line line 4 of this letter Mr. Kleisinger continues: “You are not a party to those proceedings, yet you continue to draft and file documents and appear in court on behalf of Frana Matich and Ita Robbins. As we have repeatedly advised you, the Law Society considers such actions as contrary to the court order which prohibits you from commencing, prosecuting an defending actions on behalf of others.”
526. That most of the document filed in the court under H130330 Vancouver were filed by either Ita Robbins or Frana Matich, with Frana Matich appearing at hearing on April 7, 2014 where Kloegman J. pronounced stay order(s).
527. I verily believe this statement by Michael Kleisinger is absolute proof of his intentional contempt of court of the Reasons for Judgment of Christopher Grauer dated October 3, 2011, and further proof of the conspiratorial nature of the Law Society of BC's action and conduct with regard to their conversation with Ronald Bakonyi and further statements made by both Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, and deliberation by Justice Fenlon on May 9, 2013 (H130330), in conjunction with Michael Kleisinger's actions and conduct in conjunction with Chris Hinkson CJ under S111171.
528. At page 4 Mister Justice Grauer at paragraph [14] wrote: “Mr. Robbins signed this Notice of Civil claim as “Lawyer for Plaintiffs”. It was filed in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme Court as Action No. S-106413. It is this action that is primarily responsible responsible for the Law Society's intervention”. {That under 106413 lawyer Daniel Webster QC of Webster Hudco professional law firm acting for BMO Bank of Montreal filed defence indicating that this action (my signing my name in my wife and mother-in-law's place was a breach subsection 15(5) as I had commenced an action on another's behalf}.
529. That I know, Michael Kleisinger knows, and anyone who has any proper legal training & is honest knows that “commencing, defending and prosecution a claim” (amended by Law Society and BC Attorney General May 2012 affirmed by BC Legislature) relates to the action of filing documents in the court registry, and is unrelated to matters of leave to seek right of audience. Nothing more and nothing less. AND that this is affirmed by the Reasons of Mister Justice Grauer of October 3, 2011, and Madame Justice Fisher S151215 in Law Society of BC v Fisher (Michael Kleisinger acting for LSBC).
530. That for example (in context of “commence”, “defend” and “prosecuting”) a civil claim, the April 15, 2013 notice of hearing filed by Ronald Bakonyi on behalf of “CMIC” featuring false (criminal) statements is a “prosecuting” document, & the May 31st, 2013 ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION forged/fraudulent order conceived, produced, endorsed and filed by Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis is a “prosecution” document. The petition that Mr. Bakonyi filed under H130330 on behalf of “CMIC” is a “commencement” document. The application response document filed by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich and signed by them is a “defence” document.
531. At Page 5 of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Grauer at para [19] his Lordship writes: “Although Mr. Robbins also represented his wife and mother-in-law in other proceedings connected with the foreclosure of their property, including a petition brought by MIC Investments, Action S-106413 is the only one he “commenced” on their behalf.”
532. That I verily believe that the logic would support a quick determination that a person could not “defend” or “prosecute” a claim until a party had “commenced” one.
533. That when Michael Kleisinger obtained vexatious proceeding declaration under section 18 of the BC Supreme Court Act from Chris Hinkson C.J., he sought final order based on a BC Civil Rule 8 interlocutory application which is a “prosecution” document under section 15 (5). No final order can be achieved on new subject matter which is not initiated by originating “commencement” document which is either of (a) notice of claim; (b) petition; (c) requisition. The criteria under the BC Civil Rules for use of Requisition does not apply in this instance under S111171, which claim file from lower court (Grauer J.) went to Supreme Court of Canada where a final and conclusive order was made (S.C.C. Docket 35302)
534. That when the Law Society of BC commenced petition in February 24, 2011 featuring Elizabeth Lyall and Michael Kleisinger in the matter eventually heard by Grauer J. September 2011, (with order October 3, 2011), they did not seek vexatious proceeding (litigant status) against me.
535. That I assert no other events occurred between myself & the Law Society of BC from the date of the Grauer J. Reasons (Oct. 3, 2011) which would justify seeking such an order in any event as no other event involving me and the Law Society of BC occurred other than litigation against the Law Society of BC at BC Provincial Court which went undefended by the Law Society of BC, and involved protection under the Limitation Act of cause of action of Law Society of BC using copyright material from website as evidence under S111171, for infringement under fair use provisions of the law. Fasken Martineau a cross Canadian professional law firm, Michael Kleisinger and Law Society of BC were paid professionally for their attendance to hearing, their evidence was rejected by Justice Grauer but entering into evidence forms part of their professional services and not research outside the fair use boundaries.
536. That I verily believe an honest legal profession, particularly one whose expertise is alleged to be in the area of compliance with the Legal Profession Act including the “Authority to Practice Law” – Mr. Kleisinger's alleged area of expertise, would understand or ought to understand that a notice of claim and petition are the only valid “commencement” documents and that an application from Rule 8 interlocutory matter is a “prosecution” document under section 15(5).
537. That I verily believe an honest legal professional person or law firm would understand that pretending that an interlocutory application is one and the same thing, in order to affect access to a court trial before a BC Supreme Court Justice in a rush to judgment is an abuse of public office, engaging the further abuse of office by a chief justice, which rises to the standard of criminality.
538. That at Page 6 para [23] Grauer J. writes: “Given that such acts as appearing as counsel, drawing documents for use in a judicial proceeding and negotiating a settlement do not constitute the practice of law if done for free, one might reasonably, as does Mr. Robbins, that the Law Society would have no interest is such conduct. It is concerned, after all, only with the practice of law, authorized or not.”
539. That at Page 10 para [37] Grauer J. writes: “In my view, that historical distinction (between barrister and solicitor) is important to the interpretation of these provisions and helps clarify the confusion to which the inelegance of the drafting has given rise. It provides the key to understanding the difference between “appearing as counsel or advocate” and other actions included in the definition of “practice of law” if done for a fee, on the one hand, and the reference in section 15(5) to commencing, prosecuting or drafting a proceeding, on the other.” “The former, particularly including the barrister's work of appearing at a hearing as advocate for a party, do not constitute the practice of law if done for free.”
540. At Page 10 para [38] Grauer J. writes: “It follows that if a person in the position of Mr. Robbins does nothing more than assist a party by appearing to speak on his or her behalf at a hearing for free, then he is not practicing law and the Law Society is in position to intervene. That person will be subject only to the court's overriding discretion, in the case of person who are neither litigants nor lawyers, to grant or withhold a right of audience. Where, however, a person takes in hand not only advocacy or assisting in drawing of a document, but the overall prosecution or defence of a proceeding, as a solicitor was wont to do, then he is practicing law, or at least contravening section 15(5), and the Law Society may intervene.”
541. That my submissions initially made to the S.C.C. Describe well the historical difference between the role of the solicitor and the barrister. Justice Grauer does a capable job of attaching the Legal Profession Act and specifically the provisions relating to section 15 (5) to the solicitor work only which work is presumed to be made official at point of filing at courthouse registry. The act of attending to speak on behalf of the documents which have been commenced, defended or prosecuted in court filings is the traditional job of the barrister and all persons even lawyers in practice are subject to a right or withhold of audience.
542. That I believe that Elizabeth Lyall senior partner with Fasken Martineau and the province's foremost expert on insurance matters for lawyers as lead counsel for Law Society of BC in Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins in charge of Michael Kleisinger who sat as 2nd chair during trial under S111171, would understand what Justice Grauer was saying in his Reasons, she did not find it necessary to participate in any way with the defence of my appeal of costs of the Grauer J. order, and she, (as well as any lawyer with Queens Counsel designation would be aware), that Michael Kleisinger in acting in contempt of the Grauer J. order and for this reason I included correspondence to her and included my cover letter to public domain
543. That in paragraph 2 of the Evidence against Mr. Kleisinger from letter January 6, 2014 he 'lumbers' from his contemptuous analysis of Justice Grauer's order (possibly factored by his 2nd fiddle role in that hearing) to segue in paragraph 2 stating: “We (this must mean he and his employer the Law Society of BC or possibly just he, Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis & Justice Fenlon) understand that you have recently alleged in correspondence that you have obtained a power of attorney from your wife. The reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Grauer (they become meaningful to him at this juncture) specifically address this issue at paragraph 44” where Mr. Kleisinger quotes Grauer J. 'Among the things that Ms. Robbins and Ms. Matich cannot lawfully do by an attorney/agent is commence, prosecute or defend a proceeding in any court, unless that attorney/agent happens to be a practicing lawyer'. And then at paragraph 3 of the January 6, 2014 letter: “As Mr. Justice Grauer has...explains in paragraph 44 of his reasons for judgment, a power of attorney does not enable you to commence, prosecute, or defend action on behalf of others.”
544. That with regard to Mr. Kleisinger's assertion in paragraph 3 of his January 6, 2014 letter I agree. What Mr. Kleisinger lacks is the apparent mental dexterity (involving the cerebral hemispheres) to realize that his own letter refutes the allegations he has made of me. He cites section 15(5) (Grauer's order as it was before those Reasons forced the amendment to it) of “commence, defend and prosecute”...and then also cites how it is applies to Ita Robbins and Frana Matich as well as to me. How could it apply to both myself (not a party in the primary case 106413) and to Ita Robbins and Frana Matich at the same time, if prohibition related to drafting documents and an affidavit? Under petition of H130330 Mr. Cowan swore an affidavit in support of the petition, was this too a breach of section 15 (5)?
545. That I verily believe the drafting of documents by non lawyers cannot be 'policed' by any enabling legislation of the Legal Professions Act. To expand the regulation to libraries, kitchen tables, bars, coffee shops, beach houses, or other public places or any other place where legal matters or agreements might be drafted by non lawyers has no relation to the government, the court registry or anyone else including the Law Society of British Columbia, a position well articulated by Mister Justice Grauer of October 3, 2011 under BCSC S111171.
546. That I note that Grauer J. in his Reasons of October 3, 2011 makes it clear that any person can assist another person with documents. They simply cannot sign these documents on behalf of that person in their name unless they are a solicitor.
547. The Law Society's oversight does not become triggered until such time as documents are filed in the court registry “commencing” an action. Again, this only occurs by way of notice of claim or petition. A Requisition can only be used as a commencement document in very limited circumstances. This is why Justice Grauer brilliantly established in his Reasons that it was I who breached subsection 15(5) as it was then, but then further reasoned that neither my wife nor mother-in-law had the lawful capacity to approve my signing the document as their lawyer because they would also be breach of section 15(5). My wife and mother in law may have benefit of my helping with documents, and may have benefit of me speaking on their behalf 'with the overriding discretion of the court', but they may not benefit from my signing my name as their lawyer in the place where they as parties to the matter ought to sign in their name. It makes sense, as it makes the party to the action responsible for the commencement of that proceeding and accountable for the events which ensue.
548. That there is no evidence anywhere that at any time other than 106413 have I ever breached section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act including BC Court of Appeal action No.: CA 40954 to which Mr. Kleisinger alludes in his letter of January 6, 2014 which was “commenced” by the two appellants in that file, Ita Robbins and Frana Matich.
549. That I filed an affidavit in that matter is not related in any way to section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act, but rather, pertains to the Evidence Act, and Mr. Kleisinger is breaching my right to seek leave of the court at any time by applying his misguided threats of contempt to me in relation to a matter involving two other parties who are acting properly under section 15(1) of the Legal Professions Act, and in so doing, should be tried criminally which case law provides for.
550. That I verily believe that Mr. Kleisinger knew full well that CA 40954 was not in breach of Grauer J's order, but made his threat of contempt foolishly or desperately in order to assist Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis who he knew had filed a forged/fraudulent order in the courthouse registry (April 15, 2013 (notice of hearing); & ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION May 9th, 2013), had made statements they knew to be false during the hearing of May 9th, 2013, or he was party to the fraud and had colluded with Elizabeth Lyall and Lauri Ann Fenlon in her capacity as Justice to scheme and play out this fraud against myself, my wife and mother-in-law.
551. I make this accusation against Mr. Kleisinger of the Law Society of BC on the basis of the aforementioned facts including the evidence featured in his January 6, 2014 correspondence to me on behalf of the Law Society of British Columbia, and in light of the fact that Mr. Kleisinger was aware that a hearing of the application to extent the time to file a leave to appeal matter before the BC Court of Appeal was scheduled for January 28, 2014 under CA 40954, and that if I attended to speak on behalf of the signatories to that application made under Notice of Appeal “commencement” document filed June 6th, 2013 under BCCA CAO40954 signed in the names of Ita Robbins and Frana Matich. (That I note in support of this assertion the fact that at the hearing of the application of Mr. Bakonyi for “CMIC” the response to that application was signed by the parties Ita Robbins and Frana Matich and Frana Matich attended to hearing on April 7th, 2014), it was likely that the fraudulent activities undertaken in Chambers under H130330 May 9th, 2013 would be uncovered.
552. That in Mr. Kleisinger's Law Society of BC letter to me dated January 6, 2014 (ending page 1 and continuing page 2), he 1st references the communication to be related to “Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins S11171” (N.B. - the 'slip' of being short one number “1”) and then writes: “As such ('whatever that means') the Law Society believes that you have acted contrary to an order of the court and requires you to immediately cease doing so.”
553. That I note in support of my accusations that Mr. Kleisinger is intending to act in a misleading way because does not accuse me of acting contrary to the order of Justice Grauer. In fact, in paragraph one Mr. Kleisinger contends there are “various warnings that the Law Society considers my (sic) participation in the matter to be contrary of the order of Mr. Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011.”
554. That I note this statement is intended to mislead and take advantage of my lack of legal training. Precisely where are the other warnings other than this one on January 6th, 2014? There is no evidence available from recent provision of documents from the Officer for Privacy- only this communication (apparently) exists.
555. That I believe that Mr. Kleisinger is at this point in time on an intentional course of action to deceive the courts, induce me into a court process he knows is not valid procedure, with overarching intention to cleverly disguise the fraudulent activities of his members Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis under H130330 from May 9th, 2013 (and beyond) as the other “various warnings” wrapped up under the “As such”..conclusion that the BC Court of Appeal matter and my affidavit therein is somehow contrary to the order of Justice Grauer, or is he simply transitioning his own cryptic element of the overall 'unlawful conduct conspiracy' to rinse the Grauer J Reasons as would have them be rinsed...through the efforts of Bakonyi, Ellis and Fenlon under H130330 and the May 9th, 2013 hearing (spectacle)?
556. That in English usage “As Such” means 'in the exact meaning of the words', and Mr. Kleisinger is using threats that contain implications of potential incarceration on the basis of my “actions” contrary to Grauer J. orders. The contrary actions are not in any relation to section 18 of the BC Supreme Court (Act), which he ultimately employs through serious breach of procedure and with consent and cooperation of Chris Hinkson.
557. That I believe that in fact by pointing one finger at me, Mr. Kleisinger is in fact pointing two at himself and he is the one operating in contempt of the Grauer J. order as well as orders of the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada relating to BCSC S111171, and SCC orders under docket 35302.
558. That I verily believe the events of May 9, 2013 under BCSC H130330 involving the actions and conduct of Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis in their capacity as officers of the court and members of the Law Society of BC, as well as Lauri Fenlon would also place them in contempt of the Grauer J. order, the BC Court of Appeal orders relating S111171 and Supreme Court of Canada docket orders under docket 35302.
559. That I verily believe it is not in the public interest for members of the Law Society of BC, specific members in charge of maintaining public interest among lawyers and self litigants, and constitutional justices to be operating in a state of contempt of judicial orders at both levels of the superior courts in the Province of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada.
560. That I believe Mr. Kleisinger of the Law Society of B.C. is intending or January 6, 2014 to “game” or “con” the civil justice system intending to use his public office as “compliance officer” with superior power over the BC Court Services branch to take advantage of me and is doing so with a mindset that is willful and intending “target malice” toward me.
561. I verily believe that Mr. Kleisinger is intending to disregard or to manipulate the Grauer Reasons and Order of October 3, 2011 in relation particularly to subsection 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act on one hand to support law society members 'officers of the court' Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, along with Lauri Ann Fenlon in her role as Justice Fenlon and to initiate (another) willful defamation against me, following the original defamation caused by the Law Society of BC and its member John Motiuk at BC Human Rights Commission and Tribunal circa 1991 & 2000 when John Motiuk was under the legal protection of Christopher Hinkson QC (as he was).
562. [That my wife and I had hired Ross Davidson in October 2013 to defend against the predatory actions of “CMIC” and sister company “PCFS” but he withdraw a few weeks afterward without explanation. I believe he was told not to take my wife's case because his law partner was involved in real estate transactions and Mr. Davidson must have known that exposing the fraud from my wife's case would have 'blow back' consequences for his law firm].
563. That I have filed complaints to the Law Society of BC against Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Michael Kleisinger.
564. That I verily believe Mr. Kleisinger and his employer 'public body' Law Society of BC, has taken steps to ensure that none of its members will take our case and has through its members including former members of the Law Society of BC 'corporation' effectively blackballed myself, my wife and mother in law from access to the courts, in order to ensure that the robbery of our property, and further has encouraged its members and some justices of the BC Superior Courts, who are former fee paying members to use their office and their authority to cause harm and take revenge against us for 'making them look bad'.
565. I believe that Mr. Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of BC, members Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, with tacit cooperation from 'the judiciary' specifically Lauri Ann Fenlon, Chris Hinkson, are acting under 'colour of law', participating both directly and indirectly with every intention of removing my section 15 (1) access to justice, my rights to have the Reasons of Justice Grauer of October 3, 2011 to ultimately ensure that I do not assist my wife and mother in law in their quest to expose through court process an unconscionable loan agreement and fraudulent mortgage registration.
566. That I was afraid that following Mr. Kleisinger's letter of January 6, 2014, that if I attended to hearing date at BC Court of Appeal scheduled for January 28, 2014 that the sheriffs or police might arrest me and take me to jail as every time I attend to a Vancouver courthouse Sheriffs appear the the courtroom.
567. That I verily Mr. Kleisinger intended to use his January 6, 2014 letter threatening me with contempt without rightful cause for so doing, and that this letter was intended by him to 'kill two birds with one stone', the first keeping me from attending to court and having the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION under H130330 and other criminal actions put on the record before that court (the discovery of the foreclosure fraud), and the second one as a platform for another abuse in the administration of justice he had planned, a vexatious proceeding (litigant) in conjunction with Chief Justice Hinkson (the 2nd defamation of criminal nature), to assist the BC Attorney General, the Law Society of BC, and Chris Hinkson lawyer for their involvement in the loss of my publishing business and their direct involvement in causing my name to be listed as pedophile on Google for 3 years time, and for their efforts to discredit me further with the vexatious branding.
568. That in sum total I believe the aforementioned actions described were collectively planned either directly and/or through an understanding of the minds, not difficult to do among lawyers who speak the same language, but one different from most ordinary people.
569. On January 24, 2014 Mr. Kleisinger “compliance officer” with the Law Society of British Columbia “officer of the court” filed a Notice of Application under BCSC S111171 (not S11171) in the Vancouver Registry (the same court file involving the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Grauer which had just been concluded in November 13, 2013 (but was actually finalized in August 2015 {see S.C.C. Docket 35302].
570. That from this point forward in the chronology of events involving Michael Kleisinger, BC Supreme Court, Vancouver courthouse Trial Scheduling and Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson entered into the next phase of the overall unlawful conduct conspiracy under BCSC S111171 against myself and family, with this phase designed to 'brand over' the Grauer J. order to help to cover up and conceal the fraud which occurred May 9, 2013 under H130330
571. That the cover letter of January 24, 2014 included the following introductory statement: “We enclose for service upon you the following filed documents: 1) Notice of Application dated January 24, 2014.”
572. That the Court Rules Act, Supreme Court Civil Rules B.C. Reg. 168/2009, O.C. 302/2009 under Rule 1-2 “Citation and Application” under subsection (2) stipulates: “These Supreme Court Civil Rules govern every proceeding in the Supreme Court unless (a) the proceeding is a family law case, in which the Supreme Court Family Rules apply, or (b) an enactment otherwise provides”.
573. That the application of January 24, 2014 of Michael Kleisinger under BCSC S111171 is not a “family law case” and (b) there is no other enactment which otherwise provides”, as provided by subsection (3) which stipulates: “On application, and if all parties to a proceeding agree, the court may order that any provision of these Supreme Court Civil Rules does not apply to the proceeding”, and (4) “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 other than a final order, by application under Part 8” (rules for interlocutory application addressed in full in the September 2015 submissions to the S.C.C.).
574. That Michael Kleisinger of LSBC, Sue Smolen manager of BC Courthouse, Vancouver Trial Scheduling and Chief Justice Chris Hinkson all knew that section 18 of the BC Supreme Court Act (vexatious proceeding) was new subject matter and ought to have been the subject of a new petition, and that the rule 8 application entry point to this new subject matter under BCSC S111171, a lower court decision extinguished following final and conclusive order of Supreme Court of Canada (35302) could not achieve a final order.
575. That every document published under Chris Hinkson's authority on websites or in computer searches and court dockets is defamatory against me obtained through abuse of process, abuse of office and intentional malice.
576. That I generally question the state of mind of Chris Hinkson given the following: (a) the issues of abuse referenced in relation to his wife who I understand committed suicide over issues with her alcohol abuse and similar problems of abuse involving Chris Hinkson. This question of his state of mind follows Chris Hinkson's decision in the matter of vexatious proceeding hearing between Law Society of BC and myself under S111171 where in my response to application, and out of abundance of caution of my charter rights I included the Office of the BC Supreme Court Justice as a respondent, which the Chief Justice misinterpreted as including him personally as the respondent, representing I believe, his inability to distinguish an office which exists in perpetuity for any number of persons who might hold it, with his belief that it is one and the same with him.
577. That in context of my allegations against Chris Hinkson herein, I believe it is inappropriate for him to be sitting as justice in the Ivan Henry case, including having refused to hear from women representing victims of abuse as intervenors in that matter, when the BC Court of Appeal, a court of equivalence to the Chief Justice, (Chris Hinkson's position) permitted the BC Business Council intervenor status in the matter of the BC Teachers Federation and Government of British Columbia.
578. That in the gross abuse of administration of his office, the office of Michael Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC, Chris Hinkson was not able to distinguish between a petition, an interlocutory application under rule 8, and the authority of the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms relative to the authority of provincial superior courts and do verily believe the evidence strongly suggests that he is either incompetent or dishonest.
579. That in letter of January 30, 2014 Michael Kleisinger writes letter to me with Reference: “Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins”. This reference gives the false impression that a valid court process is underway. Mr. Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC are aware I am not a lawyer and I further believe are attempting to take advantage of the extreme duress myself and my family are under with the foreclosure matters, and appeals, and are making every effort to distract me with court procedures they know to be invalid.
580. That in furtherance of this assertion I note the first paragraph of Mr. Kleisinger's letter states as follows: “We understand you were served with our application materials on January 26, 2014 . You must serve us with your filed application response on or before tomorrow, January 31, 2014.” Mr. Kleisinger is (again) acknowledging this is a rule 8 application and not a petition (originating proceeding).
581. Mr. Kleisinger continues on with his 'con' at paragraph 2 “We also seek your preference of date for the application.” The mindset of Mr. Kleisinger is to take advantage of my lack of legal training by appearing to offer consent to a particular date with a short time line of his choosing.
582. That under Rule 17-1 “Requisitions” described as “Proceedings to which this rule applies “(1) A proceeding referred to in Rule 2-1 (2) may be brought under this rule if (a) all parties affected by the orders within the proceeding consent, or (b) the proceeding is one of which notice need not be given.”
583. That I did not agree or consent at any time to the Application of Michael Kleisinger dated January 24, 2014, and in fact was never served with the Application documents which I believe was an intentional act given that I later discovered these Application documents in the bushes at the side of my house.
584. That at this point in time I did not trust the Law Society of BC or the BC Superior Courts and believed their actions to be intentionally targeted 'active' malice.
585. That under Part 17 “Requisition Proceedings” - Rule 17-1 “Requisition” subsection (2) “A proceeding referred to in subrule (1) may be brought by filing: (c) in the case of a proceeding referred to in subrule (1)(a) [consent] (i) evidence that the order sought is consented to, (b) in the case of a proceeding referred to in subrule (1)(b), evidence in support of the order sought.”

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