Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 1-IRobbins v Cambridge, Glen P. Robbins v LSocietyBC - Sea to Sea Supreme Court Perfidy - Demand to Can Judicial Council for Inquiry v Hinkson CJ, Fenlon J (primary) (2nd) (Davies, Smith, Grauer JJ, Bauman CJ) (3rd) SCC Wagner --Abella, Rot
  Jul 14, 2020

Commentary
Draft Date
Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins, Pro Se Barristers and Solicitors, Xxxxx, We can read and count lane, British Columbia
Canadian Judicial Council Info-cjc-ccm.ca Ottawa (Ontario), Canada K1A OW8 Via legal alternative: 1 (613) 288-1575
Attention: The Right Honourable Richard Wagner (Que) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (Chairman) (Norman Sabourin Executive Director)
Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OJ1 Registry Chambers Fax: 1 (613) 996-9138
Attention: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner.
Re: Complaint against BC Supreme Court Judges: Laurie Anne Fenlon, Christopher Hinkson, Nathan Smith, and (Christopher Grauer, Barry Davies, Robert Bauman) {Supreme Court of Canada Judges/Registrar (5)).
Introduction of Recent Evidence:
I note that the 41 Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) members are all “chief justices and associate chief justices” of Canada’s Superior Courts in the Provinces and Territories as well as the Federal Court of Canada & Supreme Court of Canada.
First, “I/We”provide the most recent formal connections (“letters”) submitted to the BC Supreme Court (2019), in particular to Assistant Chief Justice Heather Holmes, and following submissions to British Columbia Elected persons “Responsible” through (1) legal escalation, (2) awareness (and common decency) including John Horgan and David Eby (now “In Personam”), “I/We” also herein provide you with letter to BC Finance Minister Carole James (BC Finance & BC AG are supposed to provide legal counsel to persons confronted with unconscionable loans which was requested by Ita Robbins), the latter Ms. James having received the 172 Legal Binder included herein available to broader audience @ www.robbinssceresearch.com, with no response from her, no response from former Assistant Chief BC Supreme Court Cullen, or current Assistant Chief Heather Holmes.
We note that two of the Complaints are made against both Chief Justices for British Columbia, who should be removed from any decision making in this process other than responding to the Complaints about them as their own person, and in their capacity as appointed justices to the Superior Court.
Theoretically, this would mean that none of the senior justices at BC Supreme Court could form part of your committee. If BC Court of Appeal Justice Robert Bauman is also excused from committee insofar as these complaints and associated case files are concerned, then that leaves.
Theoretically, and with no remaining Judge at BC Court of Appeal of higher authority than the other, subtract Bauman CJ, and that leaves the correct opportunity for purposes of these complaints for BC Court of Appeal Justice Christopher Grauer, the same Judge who heard the original case Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins (S111171), S.C.C. File No.: 35302 to be placed on the CJJ committee. Grauer ‘acting’ CJ of BC Court of Appeal would thus be de facto the Chief Justice for British Columbia and Chris Hinkson’s boss, the latter having defecated on his work - and whose fellows at BC Court of Appeal did little better.
(Glen P. Robbins - “More moves than Gretsky” ® many say)
(GPR: Discover how politicians who claim to be feminists will dare to go against the institution now (lol), the $, ‘the man’ (lol)).
Please note that the Supreme Court of Canada accepts submissions in “Letter Form”. These requisite Complaints Forms are submitted under ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) letterhead as an expression of perception of the circumstances and to protect proprietary rights for the writer/author Glen P. Robbins.
We know the Canadian Judicial Council cannot authorize compensation but a swift Inquiry into this matter, done in good faith (for once) will go along to way to pushing in this direction without going to the length of a Writ of Mandamus, a filing which would infer the end of Independence of Justices.
As Readers will note from the last draft submission, and for purposes of this current context of this Complaint former Assistant Chief Justice Cullen is currently investigating real estate, land title, non bank and casino fraud in the Province of British Columbia.
He also has all of the material and is deemed to be “aware”, the core element of legal service according to the BC Court of Appeal.
It is important to note that in terms of Judicial Immunity {“it”} hasn’t been challenged in Canada at the Supreme Court level since 1989. (GPR says Oh O!)
Judicial Immunity flows from the Constitution. It is a ‘doctrine’ - and obviously not ‘clear and settled law’. Judicial Immunity has to date, only been challenged on scope of judicial errors, but without any doubt collapses within the scope of Judicial conduct and behaviour shown to amount to deviance in these Complaints.
Any Judge, at any level of any Court in Canada, can be legally sued if their overall conduct in a court matter (or elsewhere) - their “ordinary (not professional) personality” as Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”) says, particularly where accusations of intentionality of the offending conduct are being advanced.
Adds Glen P. Robbins for the benefit of history:
“It’s more than just a little suspicious that there are so few cases challenging Judicial Immunity, given the hundreds and hundreds of superior court judges appointed over 30 years”. (-30-)
I would also note the all important State Immunities Act (between and among sovereign nations), that there is a specific exception to the Immunity where property or personal injury are concerned. The State Immunities Act is ‘wayyy’ (sic) (said like grandson Nathaniel) more important than Judicial Immunity doctrine.
State Immunity Act
3(1) Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court court in Canada.
3(2) In any proceedings before a court, the court shall give effect to the immunity conferred on a foreign state by subsection (1) notwithstanding the state has failed to take any step in the proceedings.
6. A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to (a) any death or personal or bodily injury, or (b) any damage to or loss to property that occurs in Canada.
This is important to know ‘up front’ because it means that the Complainants have real and assertive leverage in the negotiations, should Glen P. Robbins decide to launch a lawsuit against them.
Anyone, Judicial (or otherwise) can be sued in their personal names. If the State Immunities Act contains provision for personal injury and loss of property, these Judges being complained about look good bet to be on the hook - no matter.
With the State of California recently tossing the Google v Equustek case from the Supreme Court of Canada (36602) decision (kind of ) for Equustek, “Beals” from Florida where nearly 45 times damages from Florida acceptable to S.C.C. on the basis of State Comity, I can imagine a hearing using these case precedents for a hearing in the State of Florida.
Is there a courthouse in Mara Lago? (lol) {or am I}.
We will see by the evidence there ain’t no judicial ‘comity’ in the Province of British Columbia or Canada.
At no time in Canadian Judicial history have there been civil and criminal crossover cases like these: Ita Robbins v Cambridge SCC 35772, Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC SCC 35302. The end of Judicial Immunity.
{Might be a ‘deterministic’ hint to Canada as to why keep losing UN Security Council Seats}.
These two letters (and other enclosures) are provided to you along with other documents. These documents are provided in their entirety for compatibility and consistency with public declaration of the material on www.robbinssceresearch.com, (intended to protect the proprietary interests of the story line and the facts of the case).
(John Grisham has nothing on Glen P. Robbins (lol)). Enjoy!)
Formal Submission Commencement
Relating to correspondence and communication relating to this matter commencing June 4, 2019 please find enclosed the following:
June 4, 2019 letter by Registered Mail/Canada Post from Ita Robbins to Justin Trudeau “Offer to Judgment” “Service upon Justin Trudeau”. Ita Robbins offers to settle all of her matters without prejudice for $11,000,000. This Offer to Settle is copied to a gmail list under glenp.robbins@gmail.com (“community awareness”) affixed to Mr. Trudeau’s letter.
This offer notes a similar Offer to Judgment to John Horgan In Personam November 1, 2018. (Two offers are actually made to settle to John Horgan both In Personam and as Premier of British Columbia in November 22, 2018 for $22,000,000 (with public apology in BC Legislature) and later in February 2019 for $14,500,000 (settlement not public with Glen P. Robbins agreeing not sue if Ita Robbins is paid out, again on a without prejudice basis). (GPR John Horgan is raised in Saanich BC by a single mom - what is he missing?).
This June 4, 2019 letter (sic) follows delivery of the 172 legal binder (now before you) and addressed to new Attorney General David Lametti June 24, 2019, Privy Council of Canada June 24, 2019, and Supreme Court of Canada new Chief Justice Richard Wagner also June 24, 2019 providing more than enough information to trigger action from the Government of Canada.
This offer to Trudeau is signed by Ita Robbins & Glen P. Robbins, signatures witnessed by “HC”.
July 2, 2019 letter from Ita Robbins and another as well as Glen P. Robbins to Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen. (Cullen had since been moved to the Real Estate/Casino/China Inquiry of fraud). This letter says in part:
“Please find enclosed Notice of Application of Ita Robbins, another, Requisition, Draft Order(s) and Affidavit of Glen P. Robbins.”
“We would ask you consider this matter as “Urgent” which is within your Inherent Jurisdiction to do.”
July 2, 2019 Requisition signed by Ita Robbins and another which states as follows:
“This Requisition is intended to serve the Application for payment of monies out to the applicants and for dealing with other urgent matter for this Court and Associate Chief Justice (and all justices has Inherent Jurisdiction) (clever self solicitor Ita Robbins does not include (former) Associate Chief Justice Cullen (who worked as 2nd banana to slippery Chief Justice Hinkson), and opens the door to linking Heather Holmes, Cullen’s replacement to the case (which occurs)).”
July 2, 2019 Notice of Application of Ita Robbins & another which states (in part) as follows:
“The Respondents Ita Robbins and (FM) both of xxxxxxx, do hereby request payment out of Court (recovery) for sums of monies held in court under this file number and pursuant to Rule 23-4 “Money in Court” and most specifically subrules (5), (6), (11) and (15), which funds have been confirmed by Accounting at Smithe Street, registry, BC Supreme Court.”
July 2, 2019 Draft Submissions of Court Orders sought:
“Direction to the Court to pay monies held by the Court under this file to the Applicants Ita Robbins and another (sic)”. Draft Order to Honourable Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen under his Inherent Jurisdiction to do so to file the Stay of Execution Order made by Justice Kloegman (now retired) April 7, 2014 valid until April 30, 2014 and to further direct this field order to be delivered to the Supreme Court of Canada and specifically Chief Justice Richard Wagner who (along with other justices) was deceived by the fraud(s) on the Court by Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation relating to the Stay of Execution order (neither filed nor served) and not provided in any document filings by Cambridge Mortgage to Supreme Court of Canada 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage.” Draft Order of Honourable Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen under his Inherent Jurisdiction to rescind the orders obtained by Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation on April 23rd, and April 24th, 2014 for vacant possession, dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order (both granted by Smith J.) and for dismissal of Glen Robbins application to be added as party” (consented to by respondents IRobbins et al). Draft Order to Honourable Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen under his Inherent Jurisdiction to do so to rescind the Certificate of Judgment dated September 30, 2014.” Draft Order to Honourable Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen under his Inherent Jurisdiction for Stay of Proceedings application of Glen P. Robbins, Ita Robbins and another and dated May 1, 2014, and rescinding of any and all other orders which follow that date, with further Order directing the Petitioner to place all original funds paid into Court by sale of the property back immediately into the Court and further Order for those funds to be paid to Ita Robbins and another.” “Draft Order to Honourable Chief Justice Austin Cullen under his Inherent Jurisdiction to do so to make further award for damages payable to Ita Robbins and another for Specific Damages of $1.6 million in 2015-2016, for replacement of all property taken under illegal raid under fraudulent possession order and fraudulent writ of possession order (insured for $300,000) damages for pain and suffering, aggravated damages and punitive damages”. “Draft Order to Honourable Chief Justice Austin Cullen (sic) under his Inherent Jurisdiction to do so to rescind the Order of Chief Justice Chris Hinkson made April 10, 2014 against Glen P. Robbins which order was obtained through an intentional miscarriage of justice of Law Society of BC through the filing of a rule 8 application inteand of commencing petition when the subject matter was based on (the) Supreme Court Act and not Legal Professions Act (also not under BC Civil Rules an interlocutory notice and petition have different rules for time for commencing and responding).” “Draft Order of Honourable Chief Justice Austin Cullen under his Inherent Jurisdiction to do so to include this matter under his Public Inquiry (“Commission of Inquiry”) given particularly the fact that the lawyers for Cambridge Mortgage Investment knowingly filed a mortgage registration at Land Title Office featuring a rate of interest (“APR”) he knew to be fraud and which he also knew to be a criminal rate of interest laundered through a two company scheme - in breach of the Interest Act (Canada), Criminal Code of Canada, and Competition Bureau of Canada.”
These draft orders sought are signed by Ita Robbins & Another, as well as Glen P. Robbins. Each of the signatories notes the “Stay of Execution” order of April 7, 2014.
Included in the Application submissions inclusive of Orders being sought is the Affidavit of Glen P. Robbins. This Application puts everyone at court registry to the Chief Justice and other justices to the Supreme Court of Canada on notice on more In Personam services to come.
The Affidavit sworn by Glen P. Robbins is notarized July 3, 2019 by Commissioner for taking Affidavits in the Province of British Columbia Jacqueline D. Kinsey (who did a phenomenal job of keeping a record of every Affidavit signed in this case).
The Affidavit states as follows:
I, GLEN ROBBINS of xxxx MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
THAT I attended to the BC Supreme Court Registry 800 Smithe Street, in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia on June 27, 2019 to obtain “Log of 6011CR072 (Court Clerk’s notes) and note that at 10:49:55 AM on April 7, 2014 Madame Justice Kloegmann made order “So I would make the order..stay of execution..until April 30, (2014)..” (Exhibit “A” of Court Clerk notes). THAT the registry desk where Court Clerk notes are found (necessary for filing with Draft Orders for filing with registry for final signature of Justice) informed me that the tape of proceedings is the final arbiter of order and that I listened to said tape of Proceedings in Chambers (Application) placed at 10:50:47 by the registry officer and distinctly heard the voice of Madame Justice Kloegmann ordering the stay of execution until April 30, 2014. THAT during my attendance to the courthouse I attended desk 205 to review the file and paid for a photocopy of the “Proceedings in Chambers” under file No.: H130330 for April 7, 2014 and note the following: (1) At page 16 line 5 and 6 THE COURT stipulates: “Well, I would make the order and there would be a stay of execution until April 30..”; (2) that at page 27 the presiding Court Clerk “KO” (after phoning Trial Scheduling) Asserts at line 7 and 8 “My Lady, she says that is a bad week” (23rd-24th) (sic)”; (3) and further assert that on page 28 The Court stipulates at line 10 and 11 regarding the hearing date “Set it down whenever you like, Mr. Robbins...it’s up to you.” And make further note in terms of (3) that April 23 and 24th hearing dates were within the command and control of Glen Robbins, Ita Robbins and FM as Cambridge failed to respond to documents served and had forfeited under the Rules and requirement to be notified further (they were never considered Cambridge’s dates) (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). THAT I further confirmed with Accounting that there are presently monies remaining in the Courts trust and was provided with that amount inclusive of interest accrued. THAT when I first attended to obtain court clerk notes for this hearing there was no Log available and only notes relating to stay of execution which I included in Affidavits provided to the Supreme Court of Canada in Intervenor application of Google v Equustek matter - as a result of respondents not being able to file documents at Supreme Court of Canada under filed number 35772 as a consequence of the (all too) convenient order of Chief Justice Hinkson made April 10, 2014 following improper application of Chief Justice Hinkson’s former law partner Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC who I verily believe purposefully deceived the courts in order to obtain the order to assist law society member Ron Bakonyi and his client the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation.
The Exhibits include Court Clerk notes (Exhibit “A”) which support the Court Transcript and indicate that at 10:50:47 Justice Kloegman (who retired on the same day the State sanctioned home invasion-revenge plot was undertaken) “So I would make the order...stay of execution...until April 30th...give time..”
The Exhibits include Court Clerk notes (Exhibit “A”) which support the Court Transcript and indicate that at 10:50:47 Justice Kloegman (who retired on the same day the State sanctioned home invasion-revenge plot was undertaken) “So I would make the order...stay of execution...until April 30th...give time..”
Exhibit “B” from Court Transcript has THE COURT saying: “Well, I would make the order and there would be a stay of execution until April 30, 2014.” (from page 16). Page 27 of that Transcript at lines 7-9 The Clerk says “My Lady, she says that is a bad week for the 23rd or the 24th”, to which the Court responds (line 9) “So they're not able to accommodate that.” Page 28 lines 10-12 show THE COURT saying: “Set it down whenever you like, Mr. Robbins…”
July 8, 2019 The Supreme Court of British Columbia responds to Ita & Glen P. Robbins under letter of unnamed Supreme Court Legal Counsel (coward):
“Your fax to Mr. Justice Cullen (who is no longer the Associate Chief Justice) and your package along with the same letter to the Supreme Court addressed have been passed onto the Court’s Legal Counsel for replay.”
“Practice Direction 27 directs that, barring exceptional circumstances...litigants should not send correspondence to sitting judges.” (GPR says Reader should note it was sent to Austin Cullen - one step ahead of the crooks at Vancouver courthouse-(GPR he isn’t sitting (lol)).
“Mr. Robbins, you were declared a vexatious litigant by Chief Justice Hinkson on April 10, 2014…(I)f you wish to bring any actions or applications at this Court, you will need to obtain leave. Administrative Notice 16 sets out the process for seeking leave..”
I/We remind the reader that the Application related to BC Supreme Court file H130330 where Ita Robbins and others are demanding the Stay of Execution be filed.
Glen P. Robbins includes himself in the application Hinkson's order (ripped apart hereinafter), but he is not the primary mover of the application submitted by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, he can’t be, he isn’t a party,(though he is relevant because he won the stay of execution order for matters which included him (motion to be added as a party)).
After being provided with this poorly considered the response (“the opening”) from BC Supreme Court and refreshing all aspects of the case relative to Time Limitations, and noting that Austin Cullen remains a judge even at Inquiry even if he isn’t a sitting judge - his preceding position as Assistant Chief Justice during the Hinkson, Bakonyi, Kleisinger, Ellis Roadburg frauds and games on the court pervade captures him in the net as a potential accessory (lol). He must have been “aware” of the document (and the fraud on the court he was responsible for). (Born in Croatia, Ita Robbins (Matich) father was a long time fisherman - they know a little something about nets remaining big in the fishing industry in Canada to this day).
On August 16, 2019 Ita Robbins and another write to Madame Justice Heather Holmes and to Chief Justice Supreme Court of Canada - Richard Wagner - - - the following:
“This letter is sent to you on the basis of “unique circumstances” established by the Supreme Court of Canada and as a sequential reply to the response in a recent letter from your Court.”
“The Supreme Court of Canada would be the next step after you in pursuit of remedies in this matter…, I would speculate that the Supreme Court of Canada might prefer the BC Courts to clear up its mess.”
“I note for your edification that the following unique circumstances are advanced and thus acknowledged in BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Streets Trial Division (sic) ‘Special Counsel’s letter of July 8 (included here to all parties to ensure transparency and swift accountability. Practice Directive of Chief Justice Robert Bauman that letters to judges - be advanced only in such circumstances.” (GPR unique circumstances are derived from the Supreme Court of Canada).
“I would ask that you edify yourself of Bauman CJ’s Practice Directive of 2010 wherein he directed that documents filed in the Court registry be checked by staff for compliance with the rules.”
“In this specific context, I would stipulate that “but for” the reckless bad faith of BC Supreme Court registry @ 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC accepting documents for filing by Ron Bakonyi lawyer, on behalf of Client Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc. (Peet & Cowan Financial Services “complicit “sister” (sic) company this disaster might never have occurred.”
“Smithe Street registry habitually explained the reason they accepted documents filing irregularity is that the AG policy was to simply ‘smile and file’.” (GPR If non judges can ignore practice directives at the registry so can everyone else).
“I introduce the unique circumstances as these are determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to display our position that a Practice Directive is not the equal of a court order as the Stay of Execution order produced from Hearing by Justice (Satanove) Kloegman (“JSK”) April 7, 2014 over 5 years ago.
“This Stay of Execution order despite being made by JSK on tape dicta and being denoted in the court clerk notes has not been filed. This outstanding order not yet filed is provided as unique circumstance 1.”
I/We (sic) have exhausted every point of communication through institution escalation of these unique circumstances which we believe add up to criminal malfeasance at the highest office.”
“As you can plainly see from the submissions, in November 2018 we submitted an offer (note in binder analysis) to British Columbia Premier John Horgan (who I went to the same elementary and junior/high school as) for $22,000,000 (Canadian) on condition an apology be made in the BC Legislature.”
“John Horgan was served personally (twice) as was the Premier’s Office with Offer, and the ‘Binder’ of history/legal analysis you now have.”
“We take the position that John Horgan was the correct person to contact that time - 9 months ago as Executive of Cabinet (following the Law Society of BC, Ombudsperson's Office, BC Chief Justice (z)Bauman’s failure to act on the documents actually filed at court registry that should not have been filed), with the addition of course of other negligence, recklessness and malfeasance from State and subState actors. We did not even receive the courtesy of a response.”
“In February 2019 Ita Robbins submitted a second Offer to Settle to John Horgan/Cabinet (separate and distinct services of both roles personal and executive) for $14,500,000 (Canadian) where settlement would be confidential AND Glen P. Robbins would not pursue any actions at Federal Court or any other Court for damages..” Again no response from Horgan - (just a lot of dysfunctional conduct in and (sic) around the BC Legislature (sic).” (GPR asks one term wonder?)
“Many weeks ago We made a direct Offer to Settle on behalf of Ita Robbins et al with Justin Trudeau again to him personally (awareness) and as Prime Minister on behalf of the Federal Government for $11,000,000 (Canadian). The Federal Government is responsible for Interest Rates (higher in authority than pipelines), and this responsibility is intended to cover all Provinces of Canada. (We are unaware of the Province of British Columbia opting out). Again, not even the courtesy of a response.”
“Once all of the unique circumstances have been consumed and digested by you, I would suggest that constitutional law of inherent jurisdiction, as well as your equivalent authority as a BC Court of Appeal Judge (under BCCA Rules), permits you to file the outstanding April 7, 2014 order of JSK made April 7, 2014 (H130330), and then, compel all of the necessary filing adjustments made necessary by the filing with the objective of making Ita Robbins whole, returning her to her home at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC and providing additional (and significant) damages to Her, and others (sic).”
“I might add that home insurers Wawanesa were provided with all necessary documents on the basis that in good faith Ita Robbins had insured her home and belongings for $900,000. The 2017 high value of the home and property was about $1,600,000 as set out in the ‘legal analysis’ provided by GPR exclusive of an estimated $300,000 in lost property including a valuable stamp and collection that (sic) her late father had been developing since the 1930’s.”
“I would also add that Ron Bakonyi for Cambridge Mortgage et al obtained by virtue of fraud on the court when (our) daughter “V” was legally under the Infant Act. Ita’s home, all of her possessions, including a significant collection of personal mementos, pictures, collectables and other matters important to her and her children was taken by what is tantamount to a State sanctioned home invasions and misuse of RCMP two days after “V’s” 19 birthday.”
“We take the position that Special Counsel’s unsigned letter stipulating that on April 10, 2014 order made by Chris Hinkson CJ is quite obviously, an entirely different matter than H130330 involving the Law Society of BC (S111171) is the pretext for documents being considered for filing amounts to a continuation an exacerbation of the reckless bad faith inflicted upon Ita Robbins et by BC Court Services.
For your edification Glen P. Robbins points out the fact that Michael Kleisinger of LSBC, a former law partner of Chris Hinkson (as he was then) obtained a Trial Date from Trial Scheduling (once again 800 Smithe Street) on the basis of a BC Civil Rule 8 (interlocutory filing) under file No.: *(S111171) Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins (SCC 35302) where the lower court (Newsflash: Grauer J. promoted to BC Court of Appeal after this letter was delivered (2020) made order October 3, 2011 pursuant to Petition under the Legal Profession Act.
The “ April 10, 2014 order claimed as bar to Applications provided to the Court, was thus based on an erroneous application Rule 8 involving an entirely different matter already determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, when as it was brought under BC Supreme Court Act should have been commenced by way of Petition and filed at Chambers Division.”
“This process irregularity in rush to judgment in a court short of judges (see Hinkson “gazette”) wherein Glen P. Robbins was 1st served with application March 8, 2014 for hearing March 20, 2014. A Petition would not have been heard until months later. To this end, and with a view to any potential cause of action, who was well aware of the irregular miscarriage of justice as it was denoted as protest at the top of the Application Response (not petition response).
“Glen P. Robbins had informed Michael Kleisinger in a written letter October 2013 that he intended to seek Default Judgment from a 2000 case filed against the Government of British Columbia for BCHRT erroneously depicting him as a pedophile from a HR case where the allegation was staring. GPR’s rights were subverted in that case when his lawyer John Motiuk (JM) failed to make an application to sever 5 complainants who had clearly been found to be lying. GPR claimed in the 2000 court filing that JM informed him (too late) that he did not file the application as directed as his lawyer (Chris Hinkson) who was defending him (JM) at Law Society of BC - and (sic) told him not to.”
“H1300330 involves foreclosure of property, fraud, criminal interest rates, court fraud, document filing fraud etc., S111171 involves injunctive measures relating to imagined issues of vexation advanced by the Law Society of BC (“LSBC”). The order for Stay of Execution was made 3 days before the *Vexatious Procedure order.”
“Desk 5 of the BC Supreme Court insists that court clerk notes were available from the April 7, 2014 Hearing on April 9, 2014. Further “We” did not have say in the filing of orders, the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage (“CM”) and lawyer Ronald Bakonyi (“RB”) had sole custody of the filing. We include the letter of Special Counsel as admission of evidence in support of unique circumstance 2.”
“A Practice Directive on court procedures should not be sold by Special Counsel acting on behalf of the administration, and in particularly the offices of Chief Justices, Assistant Chief Justices, (and the entire Court of Appeal and all other justices) in the BC Superior Court system - as a rationale for not filing an order of a constitutionally appointed justice Sanatove Kloegman (Chretien 1995) - as it immediately brings the administration of justice into disrepute by inference.” “In note in this regard that Madame Justice Saunders of BC Court of BC Court of Appeal declared me to be an Officious Bystander - which has its origins in contract law and inferences taken thereupon by the Officious Bystander. This is unique circumstance 3.”
“Ita Robbins et al (“We”) first sought to have the “Triable Issues” relating to a loan agreement made between Peet and Cowan Financial Services (“PC”), Ita Robbins & Frana Matich (“We”) at 98.7% Annual Percentage Rate, later ‘laundered’ through a 2nd company Cambridge Mortgage (“CM”) owned by the same two men and filed with fraudulent intent within the Federal Box for declaring APR’s (Interest Act Canada) and subsequent filing at Land Title as 8.9%/9.2% at the original Hearing for Order Nisi.” “The matter of Triable Issues is made well on Court Transcript by GPR at the original foreclosure Hearing as well as the April 7, 2014 Hearing before Satanove Kloegman.”
“I would advise this Court that on April 10, 2014 at New Westminster courthouse in a related matter (We had filed an action there) opposing counsel Anthony Leoni indicated before Justice Ball that the matter of Triable Issues could have been addressed with a $4,000 payment to a lawyer inclusive of disbursements. The fact that no Hearing of the obvious Triable Issues took place, these are thus outstanding as well. This is unique circumstance 4. “We also note that in the H130330 matter, CM and lawyer Robert Ellis Bank of Montreal filed a Notice of Hearing that predicated on the information provided on the face of the document (GPR an idiot could see this) should have rendered unacceptable by the court registry as it was filed prior to the extinguishment of time for filing a response to petition, and included information that the Hearing would require only 5 minutes and other fraudulent representations of fact.”
“We also note that both Bakonyi for CM and Robert Ellis for BMO filed a fraudulent Order Made After Application on May 28, 2013, where no substantive Application was ever made, and where no evidence was ever adduced. This fraudulent document should never have been accepted by Civil registry as there was no predicate Application on the court grid necessary for an Order Made After Application to be received.” “This fraudulent Order Made After Application by Cambridge Mortgage and BMO attorneys (LSBC members) was later used to (apparently) dupe BC Supreme Court Master Tokarek at Hearing of Application for Conduct of Sale into believing that a substantive order had been made by Fenlon J. at foreclosure hearing to apply at the Conduct of Sale Hearing.” “(sic)” “But for the fraudulent Order Made After Application document, Master Tokarek may have had the opportunity to send the matter over to Trial Scheduling for hearing based on the obvious problems with the 98.7% criminal loan agreement and fraudulent mortgage registration at Land Title. (A de minimis stand is the legal test for Hearing).”
The “irregular” Notice of Hearing document and the fully fraudulent Order Made After Application document and the perversion of administrative and natural justice (access to justice) are provided as unique circumstance 5.” “It is the position of Ita Robbins et al (We) that the application for stay of proceedings made before Madame Justice Satanove Kloegman (JSK) April 7, 2014 was an effort to mitigate the train wreck of damages about to occur should be made by you now subsequent in chronology to the April 7, 2014 order for Stay of Execution.” “We base this position in part on case citations R v Askov (1990) (SCC case file 20560) where an appeal was allowed and a stay of proceedings directed owing to unreasonable delay”, and R v Jordan (2016) SCC 27 (File No.: 36068 where Supreme Court of Canada Judges declared “At the heart of this new framework (delay) is a presumptive ceiling beyond which delay...is presumed to be unreasonable.”
overseen by Vancouver law firm Fasken Martineau, Elizabeth Lyall’s (who represented LSBC v Glen P. Robbins), a clear conflict known then to John Horgan, BC’s current Premier, whose fingerprints are all over passively approving the payment (Hansard) which never should have occurred.
continued from No.: 4
“That ‘Special Counsel’ would utilize the completely unrelated Order of Hinkson CJ of April 10, 2014 {itself another fraud on the court’s processes (Practice Directive indeed), as a bar for achieving awaited relief and remedy for persons not party to that action (Ita Robbins & Frana Matich) is itself disturbing and would add that it takes a pretty brazen attitude of compounded bath faith to conflate the two. This constitutes unique circumstance 9.
“In context of and conjunctive to the unique circumstance(s) 5 & 6, We assert the fraudulent orders obtained April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014 to exist as unique circumstance 7. “Given the assertion of criminal activity and court fraud We would assert unique circumstance 8 - arguments of criminal motive in the matter (available at SCC Google v Equustek Intervenor application of GPR and read by Brown J. of that court). “We believe these actions were taken in May 2013 (just prior to the ‘surprise’ Provincial Election of Christy Clark and BC Liberals) and 2014 were intended to cover up the criminal fraud in the matter as this relates to criminal interest rates and constructive fraud (Federal fraud) of knowingly filing an Interest Rate known to be false at Land Title. Had an order been granted (to Ita Robbins) - this would surely have been news for public consumption through the press (Ian Mulgrew of the Sun had already written an article about the Law Society of BC v GPR), and the public interest, and my have interrupted the greater real estate fraud from occurring as former Assistant Chief Justice Cullen is alleged to be dealing with under role as Commissioner for Public Inquiry.”
“The presumptive ceiling is 18 months for cases tried in the provincial court, and 30 months for cases in superior court.” “We would also point out that historically court decisions involving delay related to criminal cases, but should note in Jordan no distinction was made between criminal and civil cases only the level of the court. Obviously too much time has gone past, the actions of the petitioner and counsel are clearly criminal acts of fraud and Ita Robbins et al have not (had) a hearing.” This is unique circumstance 6. “The reckless behaviour of LSBC member Bakonyi for CM turned up several criminal degrees following his decision to ignore the Stay of Execution made by JSK April 7, 2014 occurring with his unilateral and illegal attendance to Smith Street courthouse and judges chambers for orders April 23, 2014 (dismissal of GPR’s Application to be added as a party H130330 {consented to by respondents Ita Robbins and Frana Matich}, and April 24, 2014 (dismissal of Conduct of Sale order & Vacant Possession orders) in clear contempt of the order of JSK for Stay of Execution April 7, 2014 in authority until April 30, 2014.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2020