Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins Reply to the Respondent in Google v Equustek file No. 36602
  Nov 09, 2016

The Applicant's Reply to the Respondents' Response
The Respondent asserts that the Applicant's application seeking Intervener status is without (legal) merit.“
Legal merit” – the inherent rights or wrong of a case (inherent-as a right of privilege).
According to online website legal merit is described as follows: “...(I)n the legal context, merit refers to a claim of deprivation of a legal right. Meritorious claims usually cite legal authorities, such as statutory laws or case law, to support their arguments.”
“However, merit is a subjective term that takes various factors into account on a case by case basis.”
The Law Dictionary (featuring Black's Law Dictionary) merit can be construed “in terms of substantive law...the strict legal right of parties, as contradistinguished from those mere questions of practice which every court regulates for itself, and from all matters which depend upon the discretion or favour of the Courts.”
The Applicant argues that he has gained the threshold of the merits of his arguments and has exhibited “the real nature of the transactions and controversies” revealing that he is “in the rights” particularly as this concerns this Supreme Court of Canada application.
Yet, merit bears no relationship to the rules considered in an Intervention application at the Supreme Court of Canada.
“G” v “E” deals with administrative law, interlocutory orders, injunctions, non parties to an action. The same issues are involved in the Applicant's case.
I can say that without any reservation and with significant research that the B.C. real estate market is going to blow and all the political procrastination in the world cannot hold it back. I will be there having documented the sub prime fraud in this province, the participation of BC lawyers in it, the justices who enabled it, and the politicians who placed citizens in harms way.
– and await my position deeper and more comfortably in the catbird's seat having laid out the bread crumb's for the public.
The sub prime mortgage fraud I speak of, and the 'political judicial' participation in it, when the discovery of it is more widely disseminated, (when it can be shown that the highest court in the land stood by and watched), and when it is revealed (sooner than later) that people in high places of government participated in the financial disaster, and took no steps to appear to want to solve it, each of these two elite groups with an interest in protecting 'its own', will establish a direct challenge to peace order and good government in this country and more specifically in the Province of British Columbia –
like a fuse on a bomb (not intended for any purpose of Sedition, but rather for sole purpose of emphasis).
If all of the truths of this is learned through the Google case than so be it. The irony of common issues between both cases cannot be denied, but this irony should serve as metaphor to the judicial mind which is all this application requires of it – and all I humbly offer.
Freedom of speech, expression are part and parcel of access to justice, a just society which is the best society - and Google like me and my family got the shitty end of the stick, by, justices and other officers who I believe had intention to place the aforementioned stick in said product of decision making in all three cases featured in submissions.
Google v Equustek is under the lights, action and camera...what do you do with the truth of relevant matters? Hey British Columbia – you are a province within a federation, not a federation unto yourself applying the law and the Constitution when (and if) your see fit. You have been 'outed' by an ordinary citizen armed with the facts.
B.C. lawyers are earning millions every year signing off on mortgages they know to be improper, unconscionable or just plain fraud. They would rather trample justice than pay the piper for their dishonesty. These lawyers and persons in authority are exhibiting behaviour that supports the mostly negative view society (still) has of them. The reputation is earned (once again).
Didn't Chief Justice McLachlin permit Intervener status to a well known and respected Jewish group to provide historical context in a free speech case? In R v Finta, Madame Justice McLachlin found that the Canadian Jewish Congress League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada and Intermicus “all offered useful and novel submissions.” 'Hence these appellants were granted leave to Intervene.'
In the Finta case “several issues were raised on appeal” most noticeably was whether or not s. 7(3.71) of the Criminal Code “merely jurisdictional in nature or did it create two new offences.”
IF the Finta case with International scope originally involving matters occurring in Hungary is relevant to our Criminal Code, then logically speaking shouldn't similar criminal conduct actually occurring in Canada, in this case by Hungarian Jewish activist and B.C. lawyer Ronald Bakonyi (counsel for Cambridge Mortgage), and Ellis Roadburg (legal counsel for BMO Bank) filing an Order Made After Application (May 31st, 2013 BCSC H130330) when no application was made, no evidence adduced and no substantive order made, (one which was made in Fenlon J.'s name which she signed a year later), where Ronald Bakonyi purposefully and with malice aforethought exercised a vacant possession order illegally obtained while under stay of execution, not reported in filings with at the Supreme Court of Canada (35772)... offer new and useful information to Canadians, and, given the severity of the crime, and the certain jurisdiction that the Criminal Code has for actual Canadian citizens considered a crime against all Canadians...compelling all of the latitude that judicial discretion can muster?
Haven't these BC lawyers, in conjunction with BC justices working with BC Law Society made the Supreme Court of Canada a crime scene?
Now that the 'interest' of people abroad are well protected and considered by this court, is it now irrelevant that my family and I, and other ordinary Canadians be illegally dispossessed and be victimized?
The contrast of big and small parties, common ordinary folk and the world's largest search engine, legal abuses of common subject matter and common players in BC's justice system – demands the court be influenced by the Intervener.
If Chief Justice McLachlin felt that the history of 'crimes against humanity' from far far away could be considered Canada's Criminal Code, then wouldn't any reasonable person believe that taking a persons home and property by way of an order nisi achieved without a fair hearing, filing and signing an Order Made An Application that never took place, obtaining an ex parte order during a stay of execution, and doing nothing to correct it might be important and relevant to those citizens for whom the law directly affects and who fund the provisions of the Judges Act (Canada)?
As a result, the applicant and his wife (and another) who have mutually binding Enduring Powers of Attorney with one another (with the Applicant's registered at Land Title by lawyer Ross Davidson October 6, 2013) are out stolen land and property with value of $1,500,000 for which they have not been paid on red cent. We have asked repeatedly for a return of our property and possessions. We have just recently found out that everything had been auctioned off.
Doesn't this give the reader the perception that British Columbia's legal authority have acted no differently than the Nazi's in Finta?
For purposes of speaking the truth and not hiding behind legal language or focusing on the distinction between merit and the discretion of Supreme Court of Canada judges in Intervener matters, if there isn't merit here, there is merit no where. Lawyers can't file orders which they never legally sought, and justices can't sign applications and orders they never gave. Orders cannot be gained ex parted with a stay of execution in place. Can you imagine if the Warden at a U.S. jail where a person awaiting execution – was granted a stay by the Governor and the Warden elected to go ahead anyhow. This is a similar situation.
The history of International Comity from Canadian jurisprudence has involved property. Google is not the next step in that history.
The law in this country needs to get back to basics. Apply the law don't make it up as you please.
Again, it is not necessary for the Applicant to prove merit.
The Agents for the Respondent Supreme Advocacy LLP speak to this issue on their website which the Applicant “Googled”.
Under paragraph 1 “Introduction” Supreme Advocacy LLP writes:
“An intervention is a procedural device which allows strangers to a judicial proceeding to participate in some fashion in that proceeding. The rules governing intervention in the Supreme Court of Canada form a separate regime (regime defined in this instance as “a system or planned way of doing things especially imposed from above”), different from those in other courts or jurisdictions.”
At paragraph 2 “Origin of the Supreme Court of Canada Rules (Intervention)”:
“The process of intervention in the Supreme Court of Canada is regulated by the Supreme Court Rules. While these rules are statutorily approved, they actually originated from the judges of the Supreme Court themselves. Section 97 of the Supreme Court Act empowers judges, or any five of them, to make the rules of court.”
“As long as the Supreme Court Rules are not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Supreme Court Act, they have the force of statute pursuant to s. 97(3) of the Act.”
From page 3 “Recent Historical Background”
“(I)n 1987, the automatic right to intervene was abolished—In other words, on has to apply for status, even if one has status in the court below.”
From paragraph 4 “Current Rules” “(1) General Procedure: Rule 18”
“a. “Application for leave to intervene.” “The general rules for interventions in the Supreme Court of Canada are found in Rule 18. This rule provides that a person interested in an appeal or reference can intervene by leave of the judge.”
From paragraph 8 “Considerations in Deciding Whether to Intervene”
“In deciding whether or not to allow an intervention, the courts must weigh the desire to preserve judicial resources against their desire to allow the interests of individual Canadians or groups, greater voice in the judicial process. On the side of the intervener, a number of factors must be considered.”
“d. “Usefulness of submission” “...(I)n any intervention, the object is to influence judicial opinion. As such it is important to consider whether or not the Supreme Court will consider one's point of view..”
Under sub paragraph (2) “Applying for Leave to Intervene” Rule 18
“a. “Ensuring representation” “The purpose is allowing public interest intervention is to give individual Canadians great influence in the Courts. “..(T)he primary consideration must be to ensure that an affected interest group is represented and that their voices are heard.” “b. “Public v private interest interventions”: “Distinguishing between public interest and private interest interventions is also an important consideration, since it “provides a context for the court to determine both the relevance of the intervention and the criteria upon which the intervention application shall be considered.”
From sub paragraph “e” “Interest” test
“A public interest group (and individual) must consider its stake in the outcome of the appeal. Does the group have a direct stake in the result? In the appeal of R v Finta, Mr. Kenneth Narvey was denied intervention status because his interest in the appeal was “solely of having a serious preoccupation with the subject matter.”
From subparagraph “4” “Useful and different” test
“18(3) An application for the interventions shall....(c) set out the submission to be advanced by the intervener, their relevancy to the appeal or reference and the reasons for believing that the submissions will be useful to the Court and different from those of other parties {Emphasis added}.”
Here are some of the elements of the submissions of the Applicant which he believe are useful and different:
1. The lower court BC justice in Google v Equustek (Fenlon J.A.) deny Glen P. Robbins a right of audience (the right to speak on behalf of his wife) in Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp (BCSC H130330) and base this procedural decision on an Order of Justice Christopher Grauer in Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins (BCSC S111171) which case involved a singular issue involving the provisions of the Legal Professions Act (section 15(5)). At the time of this 'reckoning' by Fenlon J in May 2013 the provisions of s. 15 (5) had been amended by Royal Assent based on the mockery of the drafting of the provisions by Grauer J in his Reasons.
2. At the May 9, 2013 hearing Fenlon J. knew that her former boss at BC law firm Fasken Martineau, Elizabeth Lyall was legal counsel at trial for Law Society of BC under S111171 and ought to have recused herself from hearing the foreclosure petition. At the hearing, Fenlon J. permitted submissions by Ron Bakonyi legal counsel for Cambridge Mortgage and Robert Ellis for BMO Bank (a respondent with nominal interest) to my leave application for right to speak. (To seek adjournment as I did with prospect of hiring legal counsel)
3. At the hearing Fenlon J. was aware of the response to the foreclosure petition an in depth analysis of the criminal agreement for loan (98.7%) through Company A Peet & Cowan Financial Services later laundered through Land Title Office in BC under a lawful interest rate through a Company B, and despite this failed to consider the 'de minimus' legal concept and set the matter to trial, instead spending all the court's resources on listening to irrelevant drivel from two lawyers who appeared to know less about the Legal Profession Act than Fenlon J. did on the matter of right of audience and Fenlon J.'s constitutional discretion to permit me to speak armed with powers of attorney from my wife.
4. Fenlon J ignored (she waived off as nothing) the judicial comity of her fellow justice Christopher Grauer, which I believe she did wilfully fulfilling the collective 'axe' she and her former boss Elizabeth Lyall had to grind with me, abusing her office and power in the process, and I believe actively participating in criminal offences with Mr. Bakonyi and others. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis thereafter.
5. Fenlon J. signed an Order Made After Application of May 31, 2013 (H130330) months following the hearing date of May 9, 2013. This application and order was applied to the procedural matter of right of audience. It is a fraud. No application beyond the petition for foreclosure ever occurred and no order was ever given. Fenlon J. knew she never heard any such application and knew she did not pronounce an order based on the merits, yet she signed it later – when she thought she could get away with it.
6. In December 2014 an ex parte order was made for sale of our home and for vacant possession order granted by who else – Fenlon J. She sold the home for one half of its claimed value. In my opinion she helped Cambridge and BMO steal it and assisted in covering up the crimes. Fenlon J knew that a vacant possession order had already been made (ex parte) on April 24, 2014 during a period of stay of execution, but provided another to Ron Bakonyi anyhow.
7. Justice Fenlon was appointed to the BC Court of Appeal June 15, 2015. The appeal of the decision of BC Court of Appeal Justice Saunders in relation to my wife Ita Robbin's application for an extension of time to file leave to appeal of the order nisi granted by Fenlon J. was itself appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada 35772 (Ita Robbins, et al v Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation) was closed the 5th day of August 2015.
8. On April 17, 2014 (during the stay of execution period {order by Kloegman J.) of April 7, 2014 including Response to the motion for stay of execution application to the S.C.C. under 35772 (completed for S.C.C. April 28, 2014) during the stay of execution period – Ron Bakonyi legal counsel for Cambridge Mortgage knowingly and wilfully defrauded the Supreme Court of Canada by not disclosing the stay of execution.
9. In other filings at the Supreme Court of Canada under 35772 when an opportunity arose for Mr. Bakonyi and his clients' and for the Chief Justices of the Court (armed with the facts) to correct the situation and right the wrong and admit to knowingly filing documents without full disclosure, they failed to do so.
10. On June 14, 2014 under S.C.C. 35772 an Order was made by panel of Judges on Ita Robbins application for stay of execution which was dismissed with no costs. The order nisi which was the subject of the leave application would have been captured by the stay of execution made by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014.
The matters of 35772 at S.C.C deeply involving Fenlon J. are an exhibition of poor judgment and I allege indirect participation in criminal activity along with Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, certainly abuse of judicial powers.
These incredibly stupid actions germinated a history of corruption in BC's Superior Courts through the lives of one family and have now as justice (or irony) has infected the Supreme Court of Canada like a Type 4 cancer eating away at credibility of the Canadian Justice system, and ought to be corrected prior to the Google case commencing.
If not an International incident for Canada could be in offing, given the nature of the case, and its massive profile which I would suggest is the most important case undertaken by Canada's Highest Court in history, in particularly as this details the evolution of International Judicial Comity.
This is a big deal.
The Google case involves similar subject matter as my application provides: (a) Comity; (b) Freedom of Speech; (c) Procedural Irregularities, and a BC Court of Appeal with dubious stature as a court of appeal - which have detrimentally affected myself and my family in ways which can only be described as disastrous, and which I believe reflect actions and conduct which can only be described as ranging from belligerent denial to criminal, opportunities were available to (a) settle; (b) attend mediation, or otherwise correct mistakes no action was taken.
In this light, I would assess my participation here as friendly (and necessary) to the Court.
Myself and my family are not sore losers, we were cheated, we remain in a 'state of cheatdom' one organized by people with extraordinary authority granted to them by others. Instead of behaving in a manner of trust, they chose to take the lower road and protect their money and the money of their friends and associates.
The credibility of these so called independent judicial appointees, of the entire provincial superior court justice system in British Columbia is exposed.
In the Google matter not only do I believe the lower court reasoning of Fenlon J. is dubious. Her range of abuse of power is apparent in comparison to her actions in the Cambridge matter. She doesn't produce final judgment, she invokes an “innocent” non party through dubious use of court procedure for what appears to be the sole ambition of making International law.
The Applicant is an ordinary citizen with no formal legal education fed up with abject dishonesty and complicity of corruption and abuse of office and power, and who is dedicated to making criticism of the judiciary and those who vet them and appoint them a contact sport going forward, and he sat down and produced his own Reasons in Google as a statement suggesting his effort was better than the Fenlon J's were. At least the bona fides of real effort are in place.
As imperfect as they may be my Reasons of the Ordinary Citizen Armed with the Facts is I believe it is a superior effort to the one that either Fenlon J. or the BC Court of Appeal made in Google and one which might assist Ryerson law school in encouraging more creative ways to deal with the law (as opposed to the Trinity Western University matter (wait, Hinkson again?) which seeks to produce lawyers who agree to matters inconsistent with the Charter. Are you seeing the point yet?
The Applicant doesn't believe the BC Court of Appeal decision in Google was such that would suggest that the appeal should have been dismissed. This is obviously the subject of the current matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, however, it is my opinion that the BC Court of Appeal is not acting properly as a court of appeal but rather as a rubber stamp to some most favoured decisions coming from the lower superior court as in the Google case. (Trinity Western, BC Teachers).
The Applicant notes that during the period of the Google case was under appeal to the BC Court of Appeal, the lower court justice Fenlon J. was actively being considered to the BC Court of Appeal and was appointed to that court just days following the decision to dismiss Googles' appeal.
The Applicant takes the position, particularly in light of how many people in the United States and persons like myself of Libertarian beliefs value property rights. The right to defend one's property in the United States includes consideration of the right to use force to repel an attacker.
As a Canadian whose rights have been trampled and whose wife and families lives (legal rights) have been shamefully damaged by persons appointed to high office, I make the submissions in the Google matter as awareness to THIS COURT so that they might seek to rectify the fraud undertaken at their court, in effort to save their own reputation and International embarrassment and to secure justice for my family and myself first.
Ultimately, consideration of an application for Intervention made by a ordinary citizen to the Supreme Court of Canada has little or nothing to do with merit, but rather provides the Court with opportunity to have its mind opened to events which may help it to see a legal matter before it with eyes wide open.
It is influence that is called for and not so much reasoning, the former may invoked the gut instincts of a justice while the latter is more focused on the decision makers capacity and ability to mentally reason through facts and law.
The overarching message in the application is that there is something seriously wrong with BC's judicial system and superior courts and that message of Intervention needs to light a fire under this Google v Equustek matter.
Respectfully Offered,
Glen P. Robbins

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