Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 2 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 13, 2020

Commentary
Continued from No.: 1..
“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
gGiven 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). gWe believe these actions were taken in May 2013 (just prior to the esurprisef 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.h
gThat eSpecial Counself would utilize the completely unrelated Order of Hinkson CJ of April 10, 2014 {itself another fraud on the courtfs 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.
gMoreover, We assert that the Court registries conduct, given the information immediately available to them and in context of knowledge that this is a matter interweaving both federal and provincial jurisdictions of law infers a breach of Section 9 Conflict of Interest Act (sic) (S.C. 2006, c.9, S.2) as the anonymous Special Counsel de facto represents former Assistant Chief Justice Cullen, as well as Hinkson CJ, as well as the administration of Constitutionally made Superior Courts in the Provinces (B.C.), and should thus be construed as using the Office(s) gto improperly further the private interests of a third partyh most particularly the interests of the Court registry at 800 Smithe Street (being found out), the proper scrutiny of a number of Justices of the Superior Courts (contempt of Courts/Judges Act/Constitution of Canada), the office of the Attorney General of British Columbia acting for the Government of British Columbia, the Law Society of BC and class of members participating in the filing of the fraudulent or otherwise illegal documents in the Courts themselves and Land Title Office in order to enrich themselves and their friends or to avert paying for the consequences of their actions.h
gUnique Circumstance 1- the Stay of Execution order of Justice (Satanove) Kloegmanh. gThe Transcript Record of the April 7, 2014 Hearing before JSK clearly reveals the presiding court clerk at the direction of JSK unable to secure a trial hearing date from the Trial Division in order to accommodate all matters. The April 23 and 24, 2014 court dates controlled by Glen P. Robbins (23rd) and Ita Robbins et al (24th) (no response by CM filed and served) were Chambers Dates.h
gJSKfs efforts to convert these Chambers Dates to Dates at Trial Scheduling would require specific paperwork to be filed, and on its face indicates an effort by JSK provide one all inclusive Trial Date. By inference - even without the explicit Order for Stay of Execution - Justice Satanove Kloegman did not want the matters to be heard through the existing Chambers Dates. gIt would thus be impossible to find an escape portal for Bakonyi and CM that might explain his showing up during a Stay of Execution upon any reasonable person reading the Court Clerk notes.h (GPR or hearing the most important tape of the proceedings).
gPractice Directives for obtaining a Hearing Date from Trial Scheduling at BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street demand that any half day, full day or more be obtained during the first week of the month. The April 7, 2014 date did comply with this Practice Directive and JSK was correct to give it a try. It was her intention to give all parties a Hearing Date as soon as possible.h
gGiven that JSK adjourned the April 7, 2014 application by Bakonyi/Cambridge for Vacant Possession and placed custody with Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins et al for obtaining a Trial Date as soon as possible, would infer the next opportunity to obtain a Hearing Date from Trial Scheduling would be in the first week of May 2014. Well aware of Bakonyi/Cambridgefs predicament We were aware that the earliest half days, full days etc. were two months or more down the road.h gFollowing JSKfs directives Glen P. Robbins (application to be added as a party) and acting on behalf of gWeh IN GOOD FAITH contacted Trial Scheduling on the first available day in May 2014 and spoke to Trial Scheduling Manager Sue Smolen (see affidavits filed in Google v Equustek) to secure that Date.
gSue Smolen Manager of Trial Scheduling refused to provide a Hearing Date and did so on the basis of the Hinkson CJ order of April 10, 2014 in the LSBC v GPR matter - this without legal authority to do so in contempt of the Court we believe.h
We assert that Sue Smolen and Chris Hinkson CJ were aware that Ron Bakonyi and Cambridge had intentionally acted in contempt of the Satanove Kloegman J order of April 7, 2014 and attended court unilaterally April 23 and 24, 2014 and were themselves interfering with the administration of justice to enable the cover up of these criminal activities.h
gWhere the Criminal Code of Canada is not applied to this event in denying Ita Robbins et al a fair hearing, We assert that same unethical behaviour captured by Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act applies given that BC Superior Court Judges (and their changes) are representing the Constitution of Canada and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition we assert this Conflict as Unique Circumstance 10 with linkage to Unique Circumstance 1.
gIn terms of the matter of the court fraud Vacant possession order obtained (in the courtroom) by LSBC and Bakonyi/Cambridge - this type of order is linked to a Writ of Possession. The Writ of Possession currently on file stipulates that NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION be taken. The Writ of Possession document provided at the door the day the State sanctioned home invasion occurred was also a fraud.h gThe record of document filing will also show that private bailiffs and RCMP attended to enforce the document, that Glen P. Robbins did speak a spokesperson for his nephew Ryan Dalziel (a former court clerk SCC) with RCMP and Private Bailiffs and that Glen P. Robbins did inform them that they did not have valid legal cause to take the action they were taking, and demanded they contact their superiors.
Both the bailiffs and RCMP officers refused to investigate the possibility of mistake, instead phoning Ron Bakonyi for Cambridge, who when confronted with this problem, offered to have the bailiffs and RCMP leave him and his family alone if We (sic) would agree to a Conduct of Sale of the property.h gBakonyi then directed the Bailiffs to demand that the RCMP detain Glen P. Robbins who was ordered by threat of force to go across and stand at the other side of the street while his family home was looted.h
An entire fraud upon the court was undertaken in order to negotiate a settlement aided and abetted by a Federal Police force (RCMP).
gObviously this matter is a debacle and in a healthy democracy, persons would be charged with crimes, or alternatively pay restitution to Ita Robbins et al for that fraud including misusing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to improperly interfere with civil matter without justification, an anxious effort by the federal police force to act unethically (illegally) in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act (jurisdiction). This as well as the detaining of Glen P. Robbins and the additional threat of detention of his wife and daughter amounts to a cause of action in our opinion.h gWe anticipate that relief and remedy will be undertaken by yourself under your inherent jurisdiction and ask you to note other persons to whom this letter is sent including a copy to Office (sic) holde in the United States on the basis of fraudulent Interest Rates - and knowledge that the USMCA deal between the US and Canada is being held up.h
gIn addition very soon the Inspector General of the United States will be issuing a Report relating in part to the dubious FISA application in that country (politics gaming the legal system) and its causation of the Mueller investigation.h gI anticipate that President Trump will probably eread thisf and in context would add that Justice Satanove Kloegman presided over a case involving former (Republican) President George W. Bush involving International law (Comity)-which she ultimately dismissed declaring it a political hit job.h
gI note that the State of California dismissed the matter against Google and the order of the Supreme Court of Canada.h gIn context Ita Robbins (Matich) et al and Donald Trump (as he was then) have much in common without concerns about the credibility of the Justice system in our respective countries. The proof is clearly evident in the pudding.h gLastly, I note you were appointed in 2001 (as was former Assistant Chief Cullen) by former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Hinkson CJ was appointed by Stephen Harper.h
gJustice Satanove Kloegman was appointed in 1995, again by former Canadian PM Chretien.h gIn the history of Constitutionally appointed justices to BCfs Superior Courts I would place Kloegman Jf.s body of judicial decision making in the top 30 and Chris Hinksonfs in the bottom 10 (see Trinity Western lol).
Signatures of Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins.
gDelivery of this letter, the Applications already provided to the Court (resubmission) and all other materials is also being sent as it is to Her Honor to the following personsh: BC Attorney General David Eby, Room 232 Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC PO Box Stn. Provincial Government; Attention Mr. David Eby gIn Personamh; David Lametti, Attorney General Canada, 180 Wellington Street Office - 609 House of Commons, Ottawa Ontario K1A OAG; Richard Wagner SCC Chief Justice in his capacity as Chair Judicial Council of Canada, 150 Metcalfe Street, Ottaw, Ontario K2P 1P1; Carole James, BC Finance Minister ℅ constituency office located at 1084 Fort Street, Victoria BC V8V 3K4; Attention Ms. Carole James gPersonal & Confidentialh, Privy Council Office, 85 Sparks Street, Room 1000, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3; Attention: Ian Shugart, Clerk of the Privy Council; Board of Governors Law Foundation of British Columbia 1340-605 Robson Street, Vancouver BC V6B 5J3; Attention Mr. Geoffrey White; Kennedy Stewart, Mayor, City of Vancouver - Chair Vancouver Police Department, 3rd Floor, City Hall 453 West 12th Ave., Vancouver, British Columbia V5Y 1V4.
Copy: US President, Donald Trump, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500. (to be utilized at his pleasure in the event).
On October 25, 2019 Ita Robbins and Frana Matich (and another) of xxxxx write to gCarole Jamesh 1084 Fort Street, Victoria, B.C., V8V 3k4 gAttention: gCarole Jamesh & gCarole James Finance Ministerh
Re: Ita Robbins v Peet & Cowan Financial - Cambridge Mortgage, Province of BC et al
gPlease find enclosed a copy of the letter dated August 16, 2019 to Associate Chief Justice B.C. Heather Holmes, letter to (former) Associate Chief Justice Cullen dated July 2, 2019 letter from The Supreme Court of British Columbia dated July 8, 2019, Requisition to Supreme Court of British Columbia dated July 2, 2019 signed by Ita Robbins & ganotherh (sic), Notice of Application signed by Ita Robbins & ganotherh, Draft Order of Ita Robbins & ganotherh, Affidavit of Glen P. Robbins relating to the matter of attendance before Madame Justice Kloegman where Glen P. Robbins under BCSC Foreclosure file #H130330.h
gNotwithstanding a long list of corruptible actions undertaken by State and sub State actors, the focus here primarily is the Order of Stay of Execution made by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014, valid until April 30, 2014. You can readily see (and hear for yourself) the absolute standard and veracity of a Judicial Order by Kloegman is made in the court clerk notes, and on the tape dicta verbatim to those Notes.h gAt this hearing, Glen P. Robbins (Applicant to be added as party) and ganotherh are noted in attendance. This is the only hearing which occurred where the voices of Ita Robbins, ganotherh & Glen P. Robbins were heard.h
gI would note (sic) particularly non filing of Stay of Execution by Law Society member Ron Bakonyi, obtaining orders in contempt of judicial orders April 23 and 24 2014 including vacant possession order.h gYou will also see fraudulent documents filed at BC Court Services, Smithe Street, Vancouver including an Order Made After Application of May 28, 2013, pursuant to original foreclosure hearing (order nisi (sic)) on May 9, 2013. No Application under then the simple foreclosure petition was filed under H130330.h
gYou will also want to consider that Ita Robbins & ganotherh filed a Notice of Claim in New Westminster the proper original court for the foreclosure owing to its proximity to the home owners (rather than the lawyers office).h gPlease also note that along with service to the aforementioned Judges service of the 170 page legal analysis (complimentary to the criminal code violation analysis in Supreme Court of Canada resources (SCC # 36602) Google v Equustek - Glen P. Robbins Application for Intervenor status.h gThis was necessary given that (soon to be former) Chief Justice Hinksonfs abuse of court processes Vexatious Order against Glen P. Robbins of April 10, 2014 was used by Bakonyi for Cambridge Mortgage (Peet & Cowan Financial) to have the original Application for Leave of Ita Robbins and ganotherh (Ita Robbins et al Cambridge Mortgage) under Supreme Court of Canada file No.: 35772 not reconsidered.h
gAt no time did Cambridgefs attorney Bakonyi inform the Supreme Court of Canada of the Stay of Execution Order - which was his obligation to file. Desk 5 had the notes ready on April 9, 2014, noted as the day before the Hinkson Order.h
gAt the BC Court of Appeal hearing in September 2014 of the Appeal of the Vacant Possession Order-Bakonyi failed to notify the court of the Stay of Execution order. A Judgement was filed days later. You will not under Court of Appeal Files CAO41787 and CAO41833 that service was disputed by appellants Robbins & ganotherh - and (so) they did not attend.h gThis analysis has been served upon John Horgan in Personam and John Horgan Premier as at November 2018 (just days before the BC Legislature melt down/distraction). John Horgan in Personam and John Horgan Executive Cabinet received a 2nd Offer to Judgment from Ita Robbins & ganotherh for $14.5 Million in Damages (under non disclosure settlement) from Province of British Columbia asserting he would see NO Damages or taken any further action (Federal Court unlimited damage ceiling) if settlement were made with the women.h
gHorgan never offered the women the courtesy of response - (likely regrettable misfeasance on his part now). Ita Robbins & ganotherh also offered to settle with Justin Trudeau In Personam and Justin Trudeau Prime Minister (Executive) for $11.5 Million. Ass. Chief Justice Heather Holmes has been served, Chief Justice Wagner has been served, and BC Attorney General Eby has been served (sic).h
gThis letter marks further service to outstanding parties listed on the sheet. I would note that Mike Farnworth will be added in service and make special note that the 2000 lawsuit filed against the BC AGfs Office vis a vis BCHRT (and Chris Hinkson lawyer obstructing my lawyer-allegation) was provided to Mike Farnworth at his constituency office after my own MLAfs Ian Black refused a meeting. Current Solicitor General Farnworth said he would show that (sic) lawsuit to House Leader De Jong and get back to me - he never did.h g(Farnworth with a teeny bit of courage could have resolved Hinkson a long time ago)h.
gWhy is the Finance Ministry the correct place to correct this problem?h
gThe home owners Ita Robbins (ganotherh), are parties to a loan agreement with Peet & Cowan Financial Services (about page 80 of legal analysis and onward relevant to FICOM, Finance with implications for BC AG and Courts) where the loan amount (registered (elaunderedf at Land Title Office) features two different Interest Rates - 8.9% and 98.7% A.P.R.h The 98.7% (APR) as you can see (all relevant documents under Affidavit can be obtained quickly from the Supreme Court of Canada resource centre), is where the mandatory financial disclosure is made (on BC Government letterhead).
gLater without any Independent Legal Advice to Ita Robbins - Peet & Cowan sister company (owned by (the) same two male persons) launders the deceptive, unconscionable (loan) and on its face criminal loan agreement at Land Title Office British Columbia under Cambridge Mortgage Investment. In the gBoxh allotted to Annual Percentage Rate under Interest Act (Canada) the lawyers for Cambridge Mortgage (Peet & Cowan) file a first mortgage where two Interest Rates 8.9% and 9.2% are submitted. As you know, (sic) BC Courts Land Title doesnft review documents. It is impossible to have a mortgage with two different Interest Rates no matter.h gLastly, I would add that your creation of a Crown Corporation for FICOM and Mortgage Brokers and non bank lenders (MICS are under federal legislation) from an unregulated one requires an explanation for the sweeping change. An explanation without remedy to Ita Robbins et al is not an explanation at all. In fact, without the remedy, it may be suggested the Crown Corporation is an intended Institutional adaptation intended to hide a lot of fraud - and protect BC Institutions from necessary public scrutiny - inaction in the face (sic) of staggering evidence of Stat Actor (Intentional) fraud, abuse of office and high level contempt of judicial orders to assist people in high places from being held accountable.h
gSincerely, Glen P. Robbins, Ita Robbins, Another (signatures also initialed)
Canadian Judicial Council Background:
gThe Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was created in 1971 by the Canadian Parliament to maintain and improve the quality of judicial services in Canadafs superior services in Canadafs superior courts.h gIn a constantly changing world, the CJC gives Canadians a judicial system based on modern practices in keeping with the values of our society.h gThe Council has 41 members, under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner.h gThe Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justices of the Canadian provincial and federal courts represent the CJC.h
The edrafterf of this Complaint Glen P. Robbins, President and CEO of ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) gWe pick the US Presidentsh, provides this {apparently} year old press release from the Canadian Press from current Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner regarding the Canadian Judicial Council circa 2018:
gThe body that handles complaints about the behaviour of federally appointed judges is in need of both internal and legislative reform to streamline what is now a cumbersome disciplinary process.h
According to the Canadian Press Wagner CJ said:
eHe would be launching...a sweeping review of the Canadian Judicial Council, which has come under harsh criticism.f eWagner said he is reaching out to senior judges across the country to garner their views on what changes are needed.h Adds Wagner: gItfs a good thing to look at those issues when society has evolved, has changed - expectations have changed also.f
gI thought it was a good time to look at it. It's a major work to make sure the judiciary is still irrelevant.h
Adds Wagner:
gIfve always said this judicial conduct process is much too long, much too expensive, and it should be corrected.h gWe will look at our own internal management at CJC to decide whether there are not things we can do without legislative amendments within our own management to improve things.h gAreas include the councilfs mission, how its various communities are appointed, and the crucial role of the executive director, who wields significant power as complaints gatekeeper.h
(GPR says: The Reader should note that until recently the Chief Justice - then Beverley McLachlinfs husband was the Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council--so clearly a Canadian Conflicted Comedy (CCC). (lol only in Canada).
gEverything is on the tableh Wagner said.
gThe review comes amid a parallel effort by the council to update its ethical guidelines for judges - something last done 20 years ago.h eWagner, who became chief justice of the Supreme Court (GPR: Dec 2017) said he long wanted to look at how the judicial council and courts themselves were working. The the aim, he said, was to modernize both to ensure they were efficient, relevant and able to meet emerging challenges as the growth of self represented litigants.h In closing SCC CJ Wagner had this to say:
gItfs a good thing to look at those issues when society has evolved, has changed - expectations have changed also. I thought it was a good time to look at it. Itfs a major work to make sure the judging is still relevant.h gJudges who are subject to a complaint and citizens need to know what to expect and that will be handled expeditiously.h
gIf the judge has to be removed, he has to be removed quickly and without too much cost to society. gWe need reforms,h said Wagner.
Response to Richard Wagner by Complainant Glen P. Robbins (GPR):
gWhat a lot of nonsense. There is currently no accountability for Canadian judges, nor has there ever been. Accountability comes from politics, and as Richard Wagner admits the changes are slow because Parliament or at least those in government who make final appointments of all constitutional judges - donft want to lose one of their own appointments.h
gWhat a lot of nonsense. There is currently no accountability for Canadian judges, nor has there ever been. Accountability comes from politics, and as Richard Wagner admits the changes are slow because Parliament or at least those in government who make final appointments of all constitutional judges - donft want to lose one of their own appointments.h
Example:
On February 20, 2009 Glen P. Robbins reported on his public opinion website www.robbinssceresearch.com under headline gGlen P. Robbins - forces resignation of BC Chief Justice and exposes another BC Judge as married to a convicted Nazi - welcome to BC (Canada) corrupt capital of the western worldh (republished May 8, 2013 - one day prior to the foreclosure hearing referenced in these Complaints from Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage BCSC H130330 Supreme Court of Canada 35772 May 13, 2013).
This publication by GPR at the website of ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) followed a complaint by gKSh Re: gDemand under section 63 of the Judges Act for an inquiry into the conduct of Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg.h gKShfs letter is addressed to the BC Attorney General Wally Oppal where KS references eSection 63 of the Judges Act, a federal Act statesf: eInquiries concerning Judgesh specifically subsection 63.(1)f. eThe Court shall, at the request of the Minister or the attorney general of a province...an inquiry as to whether a judge of a superior court shall be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(a) to (d).f
Now, most people like KS and GPR who understand the system well but are not part of it, know that no Attorney General in BC is ever going to launch an inquiry into judges, lawyers or the courts. BC & Canada political actors serve the Institutions not the people.
U.S. President Trump recognized this, Canada may never understand it, or deal with it.
The AGfs office is intimately involved in the selection of judges to superior courts, and whether that judge is affiliated with the party in power through appointment or not, ultimately the institution will in practice take precedent against any valid complaint.
Ita and I hope to change this and turn the Canadian Legal/Justice system on its head.
This Complaint and subsequent submission of application for Writ of Mandamus to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the matters discussed in the Complaints will ultimately also point back in the direction of BCfs NDP Government Attorney General David Eby, and we will then see what he is made of in context of these activities particularly at the Court Registry.
The Province or perhaps the Federal government may want to investigate the nature of the Agreement between Chief Justices, BC Attorney General and Court Services BC, and the additional benefits received by Judges of value from the Province of BC.
Certainly this wonft support any claim to Independence and would seriously undermine the Judicial Immunity Doctrine.
After reading IRobbins v Cambridge and GPR v Law Society of BC - few will believe in the doctrine of Judicial Immunity. What if Prime Ministerfs failed to conduct proper due diligence in the appointment of dozens of judges across every Province?
NEWSFLASH!!Legally speaking, with the promotion of Christopher Grauer to the BC Court of Appeal, his ultimately declaring a case he heard and the subject matter of these complaints, LSBC v Glen P. Robbins S111171 a Nullity, solves both the rampant procedural frauds and corruption on that file and H130330, Cambridge v Ita Robbins. (GPR adds: Please add plenty of ca$h)
(For eager readers, the Grauer J. gNullityh is the winning solution to the shot rock as it were efficient as a eshotgun blast to the facef to this whole farce- read on though). The War can be over in a stroke of pen from Grauer J. to Nullity and the stroke of a 2nd writing that big fat check to Ita Robbins. Hip hip hooray.
Save for the compensation. ($$$$$$$). It still leaves the judges being complained about for Inquiry.
Smoking ethemf all out - if you will.
In the gKSh case, she was complaining about bias of BC Supreme Court Justice Mary Koenigsberg, whose husband Lubromar Prytalak, had been convicted in a California civil court for defamation and libel in the amount estimated at $225,000 US (present value likely $275,000 US). The California plaintiff who won the award had BC lawyers collect on the California Judgment and went to place a lien on the then million dollar home jointly owned by Prytalak and Judge Koenigsberg.
Rather than pay the Judgment BC Supreme Court Justice Koenigsberg undertook to break the law and strike her husbandfs name from title, a fraudulent conveyance to evade the Judgement of the California court. When the California courtfs British Columbia lawyer applied to the court to remove the fraudulent conveyance and to return Prytalakfs name from title in order to place the California order (lien) against it, the presiding Judge - (surprise) was Chief Justice Brenner dismissed an application that would be a slam dunk against any other person not a fellow Judge.
When KS could receive no satisfaction she hired polling and epolitical sniperf Glen P. Robbins to conduct polling about the public confidence in judges and the courts. The result was clearly a lack of confidence when the grotesque collusion between Koenigsberg and Brenner was presented to them. Not long after ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) published and distributed the story, Chief Justice Brenner quit as a Judge. eA relatively young man in good health died a year laterf.
I would note at this juncture that this ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) publication was read by IP address for Vancouver Foundation (as well as thousands of other unique visitors). I say this because the Vancouver Foundation keeps both the BC Chief Justice (Bauman) and BC Supreme Court Justice Hinkson (also being Complained about re: Abuse of Power {and general corruption} as Honorary Chairs. In 2020 the Vancouver Foundation asserts the following on its website: gThe Vancouver Foundationfs Vision and Values gpurposeh...is to bring together community assets...recognizing (sic) that raising funds to tackle an issue is only part of the solution.h
gIn 2020 we were recognized as one of BCfs 100 Top Employers.h
Is this an appropriate relationship? The Federal Judges Act sets out remuneration for constitutionally appointed justices. Why does the Province of BC top this up? Why do the Chief Justices and the BC Attorney General (responsible for court services) have a contract between and among themselves? The Vancouver Foundation operates as an investment business with cover as charity.
These are not indications of independence, but rather evidence of relationships giving the appearance of conflict.
In one of our premier cases herein Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage S.C.C. 35772 the issue is usury, a criminal interest rate of 98.7% written by the lender in the space for annual APR disclosure is at the core of the case.
It is adamantly asserted by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich (her mother) (Glen P. Robbins) in this Judicial Complaint that the lawyer-judicial contempt and fraud - clearly intentional, was in fact intended in those persons minds, ready and willing with no consideration or conscience to subvert and pervert court processes, procedures and Rules.
End of Letter.
The Complaints provided represent text book cases of gAbuse of Powerh. Wilful, wanton Martin Scorcese film-Intentional type abuses of power. eAnybody who is anybody is in on itf as the saying goes. Both senior levels of government, two provincial governments, along with both the Superior Court of BC - both levels and the Supreme Court of Canada, to greater or lesser degree.
Doesnft sound sexy? Well let me tell you Reader - The eDevil is (always) in the Detailsf ® .
This Complaint, with a view to the Supreme Court of Canada Reads like one of those great British detective series, (always first rate to me). It's a thriller. Will the reader ever have confidence in Canadian Judges again, even though legal science would suggest 95 percent are likely not corrupt.
Abuse of Power
In Supreme Court of Canada case R v Power, (1994) 1 S.C.R. 601 File No: 23566 Per La Forest, LfHeureux-Dube, Gonthier, and McLachin JJ: gIn criminal (GPR - any) cases, courts have a residual discretion to remedy an abuse of the courtfs process but only in the clearest of cases - i.e., conduct which shocks the conscience of the community and is so detrimental to the proper administration of justice that it warrants judicial intervention".
For greater emphasis, Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins cite this example of Abuse of Power from the United States entitled Prison Legal News gPro Se Tips and Tactics (Individual and Official Capacity suits)h. John Midgely March 1996.
eMr. Midgely writes of prisoners seeking redress for abuse of power violations seeking compensation. He advises prisoners in this position who have suffered a tortious wrong to gsue the right peopleh, meaning sue the right defendants.f Mr. Midgely gdiscusses two parts of suing the right defendant, and the importance of suing those responsible for a constitutional wrong in their so-called gindividual capacitiesh. Says Midgely: Be sure to sue eonly those who commit the wrongf. Selecting the correct wrongdoers gallows a suit against any public employee who subjects, or causes to be subjected someone to a deprivation of federal constitutional rights.h The Supreme Court of the United States said sue eonly those who actually cause the loss of constitutional rights can be required to pay for the lossf.
In US case Monell v Department of Social Services 436 U.S. 658 (1978). eThis is unlike ordinary state tort law, where the rule is respondent superior gThe boss is responsible for the wrongs of the employees.h As Midgely points out: eIn the general case of a prisoner or prisoners being beaten by prison guards - the guards can be sued in their own name and not by their position. If the Warden had some hand in the beating, condoned it, knew about it and didnft take steps to stop it, then the Warden can be sued in his or her own name as well.f
The test is to prove that ghigher ups had a policy or practice that led to the beating.h
BC Chief Justice (BC Court of Appeal) Robert Bauman knows that no one at BC Civil Registry follows HIS own directive.
In the Complaints for example, we note that BC Chief Justice Bauman advanced a BC Supreme Court Policy Directive that all registry employees MUST check documents for filing (lofl) - (the policy-practice directive) but failed to ensure that registry employees actually followed the directive - same effect as law (GPR lol)). This is 2010.
Remember Readers, keep in mind that this is a foreclosure issue. Ita Robbins and her family home of over 20 years. The process of Abuse of Power is normally analyzed from the front end of process and procedure actions undertaken by the State that evidences numerous Abuses of Power. The document filing permitted by the State Actors in these highlighted cases at BC Court Services is so bad as to be seriously complicit. BCGEU has to be held accountable in this sordid saga. Really disgusting.
Separately and collectively I expect the Reader will be most disgusted at the ease at which State and sub State actors are willing to so easily Abuse Power.
The RCMP Screw Up
In the Bakonyi/Cambridge crimes, the RCMP attended the Enforcement of Writ of Possession. The police are never supposed to attend to a Civil Enforcement without a court order. There was no court order to involve the police in civil enforcement nor proper cause or colour of right for them to be there.
They attended at the behest of a criminal lender, how stupid can you be?
Glen P. Robbins was detained at his house and made to stand on the other side of the street from his family's home, threatened with arrest if he didnft comply. His wife Ita Robbins and two daughters (Jane Doe 1 & 2) are also threatened with detention. The detention of Glen P. Robbins occurred after Glen P. Robbins had phoned his nephew (lawyer) Ryan Dalziel (through family intermediary) and was told the ecourt orders needed to be validf. (GPR says The family intermediary (Ryanfs dad) is a very intelligent person - As competent a transmission (in hindsight) as I believe as is the one between the Court Clerk gKOh and Justice Kloegman dated April 7, 2014 in our featured case IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment, Peet & Cowan Financial Services, Government of BC, Government of Canada, Law Society of BC BCSC H130330 BCSC 149328 (Supreme Court of Canada 35772).
The history will show that these orders were not valid.
The history will reflect that Glen P. Robbins warned the bailiffs and the RCMP, that if they participated in taking the property without checking with their bosses and making a proper inquiry, they would (later) be responsible for large damages. The RCMP refused to make a call to superior officers despite the fact they ought not be there. Two RCMP Constables refusing to make a call relating to a family having lived in their policing jurisdiction for over two decades slipping easily into the role of collector for bailiffs is clearly offensive. The civil bailiffs phoned the lenders lawyer Ron Bakonyi, who you will get a look at in this Complaint. (GPR says: I mistakenly thought he was mentally challenged). Bakonyi was informed by Glen P. Robbins that what he was doing was very wrong. Bakonyi offered a deal, he would tell the RCMP and bailiffs to stand down if Ita and he (GPR) would agree to provide conduct of sale on the property. (GPR: Process goes foreclosure order (order nisi), conduct of sale, then vacant possession-writ of possession).
The RCMP refused to make a call to superior officers despite the fact they ought not be there. Two RCMP Constables refusing to make a call relating to a family having lived in their policing jurisdiction for over two decades slipping easily into the role of collector for bailiffs is clearly offensive. The civil bailiffs phoned the lenders lawyer Ron Bakonyi, who you will get a look at in this Complaint. (GPR says: I mistakenly thought he was mentally challenged). Bakonyi was informed by Glen P. Robbins that what he was doing was very wrong. Bakonyi offered a deal, he would tell the RCMP and bailiffs to stand down if Ita and he (GPR) would agree to provide conduct of sale on the property. (GPR: Process goes foreclosure order (order nisi), conduct of sale, then vacant possession-writ of possession).
Studies show that one half of civil bailiff attendances are a matter of negotiation. Bakonyi and the Law Society had the RCMP help out the negotiation.
The only premise under which police may involve in a civil proceedings is where there is a likelihood of a crime occurring. In 2019 Glen P. Robbins had a full security check done by BC Children & Families going back 30 years. A completely clean record was observed. No one at the house the RCMP attended had any record. The City of Coquitlam, Mayor Richard Stewart and City Council are (also) responsible for the RCMP in this case (the City operates under Provincial legislation and RCMP federal sufficient to make them both suitable parties to Federal Court). The Day Supervisor at RCMP on the Canada State Sanctioned Home Invasion of July 14, 2014 retired soon afterward (malice).
Is that the RCMP were dead wrong and will be ultimately found blameworthy sufficient to kick this case out no matter the rest of the eshit showf.
The RCMP and civil bailiffs attending, were both aware of the potential for harm but nonetheless detained Glen P. Robbins without reading him his rights or informing him of why he was being detained and threatened his wife and daughters with arrest as well (psychological detention). Keep in mind that one daughter (Jane Doe 2) was a minor Infant under the Infant Act (when the court frauds discussed in greater detail hereunder) occurred. The point to be made here before we are underway with an analysis of the Abuse of Power events that occur (criminal we believe) in a number of interrelated cases at Vancouver BC Supreme Court through the period known to be between April 2013 until July 2019 and ongoing, is that everything that occurs on the date the house, land and property are effectively estolenf from Ita Robbins in effectively a Canadian State Sanctioned Home Invasion (gCSSHIh)...

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