Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins gives Reasons in Google v Equustek Vol VI
  Sep 08, 2016

Continued from Volume V:
Details of your complaint (continued) from page 4.
No actual application was ever made for joinder. It is on the basis of the BC Human Rights Tribunal that joinder was suggested. The submissions requested were not based on formal application. From page 1 para (5) of Parrack's 'evidence' on the subject matter of joinder. “The parties were to provide their position by August 1998.”
At pg 2 para (7) “During a pre-hearing conference on March 1, 1999, Mr. Motiuk, then counsel for the respondents advised that he objected to joining the complaints. Ms. Lyster submitted that the complaints should be heard together.” (Mr. Motiuk was under investigation by Law Society of BC in 1997 and again in 1999 and 2000).
From pg 2 para (7) “A schedule was set for submissions.” “The parties also agreed to dates for the exchange of witness lists, witness statements and documents.” “The Complainants were to provide their information by April 11th, 1999 and the Respondents by April 18th, 1999.”
On page 2 para (9) “Mr. Motiuk did not file submissions on the joinder issue.” “On April 8, 1999, the Tribunal confirmed would be heard together pursuant to S. 35(4) of the Code.”
Please find enclosed HUMAN RIGHTS CODE (RSBC) Chapter 210 where section 35 is repealed. Please also note Bill 53-2002 HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 under name of Honourable Geoff Plant Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. There is no reference to section 35(4) anywhere.
The question that must be asked in reviewing these 'Reasons' is how is it that the respondents were given until April 18th, 1999 to file submissions on the joinder issue and the Complainants until April 11th, 1999 and YET a decision is made on the subject April 8, 1999 three days before the Complainants were to file theirs and ten days before the agreed upon response date?
Also note that throughout this period John Motiuk has been issued a certificate by the Law Society of BC and it isn't for being lawyer of the year. Chris Hinkson QC has custody of his case and is aware of John Motiuk's mental illness.
From page 2 para (11) “By letter dated April 30th, 1999, the Complainants advised that they had provide their witness list, witness statements, document disclosure and an outline of the remedy of the respondents.”
I was never informed of any of these events.
At page 2 para (10) “By letter dated June 15th, 1999 the Complainants advised the Tribunal that they had not received the Respondent's witness list, witness statements or document disclosure. By letter dated July 19, 1999, the Complainants advised the Tribunal that they had received no information from the Respondents and requested the Tribunal's assistance. By letter dated July 21st, 1999, the Tribunal advised the parties that a pre-hearing conference would be held during the week of October 4, 1999 and the issues of disclosure would be dealt with at that time” (ending page 3).
At page 3 para (13) “By memo dated August 4th, 1999, the Complainants advised that they still had received no information from the respondents and advised that they were available for a pre-hearing conference on October 4,5 and 6, 1999. On August 5th, 1999 the Tribunal was advised that Mr. Motiuk would be available on October 4th, 1999 as both counsel were unavailable. The pre-hearng conference was rescheduled for November 16th, 1999.”
At pg 3 para (14) “By letter November 16th, 1999 Mr. Motiuk requested an adjournment of the hearing schedule to proceed on November 22, 1999.” (Clearly, on November 16th, 1999 Mr. Motiuk is aware that he is in deep with Law Society of BC investigation of his conduct, medical doctors are either dealing with his medical problem and Chris Hinkson QC his lawyer is aware of the problem(s)). In November 1999 John Motiuk if officially deemed by Law Society of BC as unauthorized to practice law.
At pg 3 para (15) “A pre-hearing conference was held on November 16th, 1999. At that time the parties were advised that the Tribunal did not have a member available to hear the complaints and the hearing was rescheduled to January 10, 2000. Ms. Beharell, counsel for the Complainants, was directed to provide the Respondents with a list of the documents the Complainants were seeking by November 19th, 1999. Mr. Motiuk was to provide the witness list, written submissions and documents by December 3, 1999.” (Mr. Motiuk does not have custody of the documents).
Mr. Motiuk failed to inform me in timely fashion that he was being investigated by the Law Society of British Columbia. He did not inform me until much too late (in 2000) that he was bi polar and was not taking his medication. (My legal counsel was not in his right mind).
Christopher Hinkson QC Mr. Motiuk's legal counsel failed to inform me in timely fashion and took this course of (inaction) I believe in a malicious effort to assist the Law Society of British Columbia and BC Attorney General (Bencher) as part of a plan of revenge for Glen Robbins making Law Society of BC members look bad in legal matters at BC Supreme Court, and for creating negative public relations in knocking off No Fault Insurance which then Premier Glen Clark was promoting as new ICBC policy. Gordon Adair and legal counsel were involved with Glen Robbins in a desperate measure to maintain the tort system which 'fight' the Trial Lawyers Association of BC had abandoned.
I take the position that Chris Hinkson QC, the Law Society of BC and BC Human Rights Tribunal lawyers Lyndsey Lyster, Tonie Beharell (both of Heenan Blaikie law firm), Tribunal Members Judy Parrack, Tom Patch, and Heather McNaughton all knew or ought to have known that John Motiuk was not in his right mind and instead of concerning themselves with the rights of Glen Robbins to a fair hearing not only did not do anything to correct the circumstance, but instead collaborated in an effort to ensure that John Motiuk's incompetence served their purposed to ensure that Glen Robbins did not receive a fair hearing and lost his case through their subterfuge and conspiracy.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins cc Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Judicial Committee, Canadian Human Rights Commission. BC Human Right Tribunal BC Ombudsperson, Privacy Commissioner BC, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Ottawa) Federal Justice Minister, PMO's Office, BC Attorney General, WCAT, WorkSafe BC, Land Titles Office/Geoff Plant United Nations Human Rights Canadian Press,
Hand Written Complaint(s) Form (to add to those already submitted) Preliminary Decision – BCHRT – Judy Parrack Bill 53-2002 Human Rights Code
This is a follow up to Privacy Commissioner relating to letters from Michael Kleisinger (the original letters were confiscated in the illegal taking of family property from vacant possession order obtained under stay of execution (freezing). The letters were eventually obtained but not without considerable pressure. (Ed)
February 10th, 2016
Glen P. Robbins
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,
Attention: “Supervisor” Managing Office
I have read and reviewed your letter of February 3, 2016. I must respectfully ask if you in fact read my material as you have suggested in your letter or just read the Law Society of BC's material and gave them what they wanted?
What you have concluded is dead wrong and should be reviewed by your managing officer.
I clearly (and simply) communicated that there were two separate requests for information. A proper review of my requests reveals that a few letters from Michael Kleisinger are required by February 27, 2016 ( hereinafter the first request preceding the 2nd request); while the 2nd request (following the 1st request may have more material.
Because of your mistake, the 2nd material request could be combined with the simple 1st request and enable the convolution of matters, something along with unnecessary omissions appears to benefit lawyers and government people generally.
Please re read my communication and commence investigation of the refusal. Be advised this material is required for criminal filing immediately, which you are purposefully delaying unnecessarily.
Section 10 (1) of the Act (which you did not appropriately delineate in your letter (supporting my accusation) stipulates as follows: “The head of a public body may extend the time for responding to a request for up to 30 days if one of the following apply:
(b) “a large number of records are requested and must be searched and meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body.” or (d) the applicant has consented, in the prescribed manner to the extension.”
The Law Society has already indicated that it requires additional time pursuant to subsection “(b)”. Considering I am accusing the Law Society of BC's compliance officer Michael Kleisinger of colluding with the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, and am pressing to file a criminal complaint, I would suggest that interfering with the operations of the public body is an arrogant position to take and by inference would suggest the same of your letter.
The February 27, 2016 deadline is assigned to a few letters from Michael Kleisinger to myself or to my wife (and possibly another). These letters were taken in the commission of a crime, material that I believe will assist in bringing criminal charges.
I believe that this decision is either derelict or deliberate but is not satisfactory.
Please have all correspondence written to me by someone in your office who is responsible for good faith performance.
I am providing a copy of this to the BC Ombudsperson and will attach it to the criminal submissions as well.
Be advised that I advance these letters to political bodies and others.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins
This letter pertains to 8 boxes of information pertaining to complaints made against my lawyer John Motiuk by other complainants during the period of time he is known to be “bi-polar” and is the client of Chris Hinkson. {Criminal submissions with links included and provided hereunder feature my affidavit declaring that John Motiuk eventually discloses his mental illness in my BCHRT matter (quasi criminal) and informs me his lawyer told him not to tell me. I am still fighting for access to these documents. The Law Society of BC has written to me and informed me that John Motiuk was under NO DUTY to inform me he wasn't in his right mind. Whose duty was it Chris Hinkson's?
January 31, 2016 via facsimile Glen P. Robbins
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner British Columbia, PO Box 9038 Stn. Prov. Gov't, P.O. Box 9038 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, B.C., Fax #: 1 250 387 1696
Office of the Privacy Commissioner 30 Victoria Street, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 1H3 Fax#: 1 819 994 6591
Department of Justice Canada Att: Minister Responsible 1 613 954 0811
BC Attorney General Attention: Suzanne Anton Fax #: 1 250 387 6411
Re: Request for Documents: Re 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC
I write pursuant to my most recent telephone conversation with “Maria” of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC”) B.C., January 29, 2016. I asked “Maria” what my next step was, when a request for information was made to entity, in this case the Law Society of B.C. and that request was not complied within the 30 working days.
“Maria” indicated that I am now permitted to file a complaint with “OIPC” and that I should include evidence of the request made.
Accordingly, to satisfy this requirement I include letters dated December 14, 2015 & January 12, 2006. The Dec. 2015 letter is denoted with an “A” in the upper right hand corner while the Jan 12th letter is denoted with “B”. The original request for letters from the Law Society of B.C. to me is noted at the bottom of page 'A4'. [I would note that in para 3 I refer to former “LSBC” lawyer John Motiuk as being “disbarred”, this is not the case, he was in fact made “unauthorized to practice law.”]
I provided a demand date of December 22, 2015 which is not compliant with the proper time, 30 working days.
Following my first telephone conversation with “Maria” at “OIPC” and edified of the actual time permitted for providing documents, I then wrote to the Law Society of BC (“LSBC”) and made sure other institutions relevant to me were also included as recipients of the correspondence. As you can see on page “B1” in paragraph 2 I provide a new and proper time limit for the original document request January 27, 2016.
The relevance of the inclusion of all parties is to ensure proper and effective communication to all authorities in my interests, and in the interest of the Canadian public which will be explained later in this letter.
The letters I am seeking not complied with by “LSBC” are written by Michael Kleisinger (“Kleisinger”) with the most essential ones required for my affidavit to accompany 30 page criminal complaint. There are only two or three letters sent after May 31, 2013 until February 2014. They would be sent from “LSBC” and “Kleisinger” to myself or myself and wife and another at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC.
I expect the letters will reveal “Kleisinger” threatening me with being in contempt of Grauer J orders by attending to court to speak on behalf of my wife (right of audience). These letter will link Mr. Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC to the forged order made by his colleagues Ronald Bakonyi (“Cambridge”) and Robert Ellis (“BMO Bank”).
Delays will only give further opportunity in my opinion for LSBC to have parties associated with it directly and indirectly to further harass us. These letters will form the last link necessary to chain “LSBC” and “Kleisinger” to Chief Justice Hinkson in my criminal allegations against them jointly and severally.
I am seeking a letter written from Trial Scheduling BC Supreme Court (Trial Division) written to me at or about January 2014 on behalf of Chief Justice Hinkson. This letter responds to my request to clarify orders of Justice Grauer and what they mean (unawares that the LPA subsections they dealt with had been amended by Royal Assent). The letter from Hinkson CJ asserts that such clarification would be “inappropriate”. Trial Scheduling is claiming no such letter exists.
“Maria” asserts that OIPC” is unable to obtain documents from the courts. I am hoping that the criminal complaint will compel an opportunity to do so.
In document “B” I also make another request for documents from LSBC after speaking with 'long time' Hearing Manager with that organization recently. This request is for “investigative material” from 1999 and 2000 as it pertains to my then lawyer John Motiuk (“Motiuk”) and investigations of him by “LSBC” which had a direct impact on me. I enclose a BC Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”) decision in this case involving myself which provides evidence of the goings on from the Reasons of Tribunal Member Judy Parrick (“Parrick”).
Because the information sought in relation to the “LSBC” - “Motiuk” - “BCHRT” involves the current Chief Justice Chris Hinkson (“Hinkson”) as he was then a lawyer and Queen's Counsel representing “Motiuk” in 1999 and 2000.
The documents relating to 1999 and 2000 confirmed in existence by Hearing Manager LSBC “Hinkson” and “Motiuk” and an “International defamation” (pedophile) are sought with deadline of February 25, 2016.
The seriousness of the matter is underscored to some degree by the correspondence dated January 15, 2016 sent by me from 5573 Eglinton in Burnaby, B.C. to “Dear Occupant”. The relevance of this is that this week I will complete an extensively researched criminal complaint to Vancouver Crown Counsel which includes analysis of Martins' Criminal Code [2012], and is being applied to (currently) civil matters involving not just myself as well but also my wife Ita Robbins and is linked to conduct involving: “LSBC” Governors, organization, a number of members directly, sitting justices including Chris Hinkson CJ, Lauri Fenlon J & (Arnold Bailey J.).
The amount of money involved in a number of elements of the proposed criminal complaint is over $1,000,000 where if a conviction is made demands minimum two year jail sentence.
My sources have informed me that Corus's show “Love it or Leave it”, not surprisingly sponsored by mortgage lenders and others is looking to do a show on 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC. Corus is a Toronto based company as is its show. The sale of the property in question has apparently been sold again. We insist both sales are linked in fraudulent conveyance owing to the criminal activities, criminal entrance to the property under threat of arrest and falsification of writ documents.
A December 15th, 2015 article in the Vancouver Province links up mortgage broker problems with publicly trading companies. (I spent 10 years in the stock market. My first introduction to the civil courts in the 1980's related to short selling exercises). I will ask my associates to help going through Corus's financials. I have already been provided with draft Statement of Claim with view to the Federal Court of Canada. Depending on the outcome of the Criminal Code allegations, I will determine next step to S.C.C., if this is necessary.
We will as always communicate this materially Internationally including to major potential trade partners in the TPP as grounds that exercise of Canadian laws for Canadians as part of the bargain, may not be such a bargain afterall. This material and others is to be set to Petronas in Malaysia as well.
It is our position that any entrance and any evidence taken from that are part of a criminal undertaking.
I include a January 20, 2016 letter to a Richmond law firm which provided delivery of correspondence pertaining to our family possessions (all of them) during what we allege is a theft of the property. It should be reaffirmed that Justice Fenlon presided over the court's sale of that property wherein the forged order made after application in her name for an amount nearly $500,000 less than the market sale a year later.
I believe Justice Fenlon's conduct rises far past any outlet on apprehension of bias and places her right in the middle of what we intend to prove is organized criminal activity.
I make known that we offered to settle the matter with the mortgage brokers on a without prejudice basis in April 2014 five months after the lender failed to participate in Mediation despite acknowledgment of being served with documents (BCSC 149328). This is relevant to the nearness of communication to the LSBC. I also make known that the Attorney General of British Columbia also refused mediation though notified pursuant to the BC Civil Rules.
The communication of January 18, 2016 to the Supreme Court of Canada is relevant in that it is an effort designed to ensure events occurring on the ground to us as ordinary people is made known to it. The Supreme Court of Canada has since written returning two sets of submissions documents filed suggesting that the orders therein are the same as those dealt with already. Although this isn't the case, I understand that the S.C.C. Cannot offer legal advice, our letter to the Registry would suggest that new events are in play including the criminal complaint application which will include the sale of the property for $1,200,000 near the time of expiration of the without prejudice offer made (summer 2015).
The Sutton realtor representing what we believe to be a theft and original fraudulent conveyance swore affidavit that she was employed by the lender. It is not unusual for lenders to have financial interests in real estate firms.
Of the many orders sought in the April and September 2015 submssions we had included an appeal of the Hinkson orders of April 10, 2014 (BCSC S111171) and March 2015 (BCSC 2015), unawares that another order would be filed March 25, 2015 (which order is back dated form April 2015 within the time frame of service of the first submissions which the S.C.C offered to be resubmitted after notifying us that the matter was accepted for a filing with deficiencies of section 23 disclosure and fee payment.
The April 2015 submission to the S.C.C., dealt with the illegal taking taking of the property by private bailiffs with R.C.M.P., and the threat of my detention and arrest. This threat followed my informing the bailiffs, the R.CM.P., and the person in charge of moving who accompanied them July 2014 that the writ of possession evidence from B.C.C.A was fraudulent, and following private bailiffs contacting Mr. Bakonyi as I had directed they should do, with bailiffs then communicating an offer to settle to have them leave. The offer was that we would agree to cooperate with conduct of sale (obtained with forged order of May 31st, 2013) and drop any litigation.
This is important to know as bailiffs are well known to try to settle matters at the door. They may not bring peace officers “R.C.M.P.” unless there is very serious and compelling evidence of previous threats of violence. I will be contacting Coquitlam R.C.M.P. , to obtain their notes from the events of that day.
The September 2015 submissions dealt in tremendous detail the historical case law pertaining to right of audience and inherent jurisdiction in relation to the civil matters involving myself and the “LSBC” under original petition commencement of February 24, 2011 (BCSC S111181). Importantly, these submissions also dealt with the fact the justice in that matter (Grauer J.) first made order (beginning of Reasons) under my promise pursuant to subsection 15(4) representing oneself as a lawyer which involved the exact same act which offended 15(5) and drew an injunction for commence, defend and prosecute. Subsection 15 (5) was later amended in May 2012 and I was not informed of the change which was relevant to my appeal to S.C.C., under 35302.
I would note that in both the Grauer J. Reasons involving “LSBC” and myself and the Parsons Reasons there is no question that the Courts have ultimate discretion over who might speak unrelated to the LPA. This makes the Order Made After Application of May 31, 2013 produced and signed by LSBC members Bakonyi and Ellis a forgery/fraud (dealt with similarly under Criminal Code) employed in order to cover a two company mortgage fraud and fraudulent registration known to Land Titles Office.
I will be advancing the theory of criminal breach involving Justice Fenlon on the basis that between court start up time on May 9, 3013 for hearing foreclosure petition and the 11:30 am commencement time, while we waited for nominal party BMO and Robert Ellis, it was arranged by BC Court Services for Fenlon J to hear the matter, pretend to be deluded by the Grauer's order clearly related to the LPA and not to matters of right of audience. We believe this was intended to ensure the order nisi order was obtained and the advantage of leverage given to her lawyer 'friends'. The Grauer Reasons provided under evidence submissions clearly revealed that her former boss and colleague Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau was “featured” counsel for “LSBC” opposed to me under S111171.
By granting the sale of property order December 2014 under H130330 (the foreclosure matter) we believe Fenlon J inserted herself in a breach of the Criminal Code, given that the file before her would have included the order forged in her name.
Any new material to be filed with the S.C.C., following the Criminal Complaint will include arguments consistent with the position of Registrar Bilodeau (S.C.C.) that the ex parte order made between “Hinkson” and “LSBC”'s Michael Kleisinger that the “Hinkson” order of April 2014 under file S111171 (the Grauer J. order of October 3, 2011) was given under commencement of new subject matter (Section 18 of BC Supreme Court Act) by way of Rule 8 interlocutory application. A new petition ought to have been filed as S111171 was concluded at the final court in the country, the S.C.C.
“Hinkson” knew or ought to have known that he did not have jurisdiction to hear a matter under file of decisions already made by 5 Supreme Court of Canada justices. The current chief justices order was then “promoted” by other members of the Law Society of B.C. including those members working for the BC Attorney General and to a case at WorkSafe BC where I am awaiting process of compensation after 7 years time. Lawyers with WorkSafe BC and the BCAG representing WCAT uttered and promoted “Hinkson's” April 10, 2014 order. In addition, members of the federal justice ministry also filed documents in the Federal Court promoting this order.
Thereafter “Hinkson” filed an order March 20, 2015 in response to a Requisition of adjournment filed by myself and others (BCSC 149328) including my wife and another under order of S111171 (though not parties) and later filed a March 25, 2015 back dated from April 2015. Should harassment consideration under the Criminal Code be considered?
I am told by Maria that “OIPC” investigators are booking dates in December 2016. Given the importance of this situation in terms of the administration of justice it is important that the letters sought for which time has passed and the investigation material due in February 2016 somehow be expedited.
I know the letters sought from LSBC and now overdue will be relevant to the criminal allegations being made against Michael Kleisinger of LSBC in conjunction with members Ronald Bakonyi and client Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp (“CMIC”) and Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg legal counsel for BMO Bank of Montreal, I believe the investigation documents sought in relation to Chris Hinkson, LSBC and John Motiuk in relation to the BCHRT matter may prove productive.
The relevant correspondence I am seeking will reveal that Michael Kleisinger of “LSBC” at or about September & October 2013 threatened to seek contempt charges against me pursuant they said to my being in breach of the Grauer J. orders (15(4) & 15(5)) linking these to attending court to speak on behalf of others. This threat has criminal implications.
I intend to prove that this effort was a breach of the Criminal Code and the sub judice rule, as well as obstruction of justice, given that I had provided “LSBC” and Mr. Kleisinger Powers of Enduring Attorney granted to me by my wife, and filed by attorney Ross Davidson at Land Title Office. (We had hired Mr. Davidson to act in our interest on this matter and he later quit without giving reason).
We believe that the investigative evidence we seek from “LSBC” relating to “Motiuk” “BCHRT” “LSBC” and “Hinkson” may provide insight into the matters involving him clearly violating due process and infecting the proper administration of justice, given the order forgery of his friend in “LSBC”, the obvious liability potential involved, the implications for other British Columbians and my declaration to seek a Default Judgment.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins cc PMO Office Canada Privy Council Canada Canadian Press (all offices), Don Davies NDP MP John Horgan BC NDP Official Opposition leader BC Attorney General, Premier's Office Corus Toronto Stock Exchange
International fax communications including: International Jurists (Switzerland)
It is clear that Chris Hinkson QC in 1998 to 2000, while John Motiuk was not doing a good job of representing either myself or my publishing company Calvary Publishing, owing I submit to his bi-polar diagnosis, was also aware of the danger that John Motiuk's illness posed to himself as a person, in his capacity as a lawyer, and to his clients. In my case I was facing a quasi criminal Tribunal on sexual harassment which the evidence clearly shows could never have taken place.
My lawyer could not defend me, he was mentally ill. Wasn't it Chris Hinkson's obligation as John Motiuk's attorney to warn me in time to obtain new counsel? Or as in the Smith and Jones case, did Chris Hinkson simply not care about me or any other of John Motiuk's clients? Further, was Chris Hinkson the lawyer that told John Motiuk not to inform me? It would seem that the Law Society has already answered this question. But John Motiuk did eventually inform me but not until he had failed to follow instructions to sever the 5 women complainants' in my case – a circumstance is the history of sexual harassment cases that had never occurred before – only too late.
In my capacity under the Legal Profession Act I filed a lawsuit including the BC Human Rights Commission (as it was then) and the BC Human Rights Tribunal as defendants and served it upon them. The Tribunal Member decided to proceed although he acknowledged awareness of the litigation at BC Supreme Court at beginning of his Reasons (where I did not attend) “its before the courts”.
This awareness of the litigation in place was later removed from the site illegally.
The Reasons were produced and in Conclusions the Tribunal Member Tom Patch who took erroneous unchallenged testimony from the lead complainant (a former business partner petitioned into bankruptcy for cheque-kiting) Jennifer Tannis that I was a pedophile. Google provided a link to these Reasons where under my name “Glen P. Robbins” was the word “pedophile”. The Tribunal Member's use of the erroneous language in his conclusions was no accident. He added in that I used the workplace as a “sexual playground”.

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