Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.:7 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 08, 2020

continued from No.: 6
At line 9 page 16 of Court Transcript - GPR has sniffed out the Constitutional con job going on where GPR says:
“That isn’t what the Judgment says: - to which THE COURT responds saying “that’s what the Order says”. Fenlon J. has cooked her goose - but wait there’s more. She wants to deep fry herself.
At line 39 Page 16 Fenlon J. digs deep into her judicial ‘conjob’ adding this: “Unless you have another, this Grauer order is binding on this Court.”
At line 35 Glen P. Robbins says prior to a lunch recess: “Your honour, it's terribly important you read the full judgment of Justice Grauer.”
To which conjob Fenlon adds: “All right sir, I’ve read the Order.”
Knowing that Robbins has cornered her Fenlon J. shits her dress and at line 8 page 19 turns to Bakonyi and asks him:
“Just if I may frame the question - that this order somehow does not apply to speaking on behalf of people in proceedings and particular applications.”
Then Fenlon adds: “If I may, what is the section 15-1 of the Legal Professions Act.”
Fenlon is asking Bakonyi who knows less than she does about this Section primary to her decision making - Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act - and Fenlon obviously knows nothing this is Bakonyi’s response:
“It’s basically that no person other than a practicing lawyer is permitted to engage in the practice of law. So I think what he is saying is that he (Glen Robbins) is not entitled to -this is what’s going on here in one sense. In the other he’s not speaking - he’s driving...and well you know he’s well versed in political science and I guess that’s the answer to your question.”
This is the hearing folks. Who among you doesn’t want to cry or laugh?
The matter of a fair and proper hearing of Glen P. Robbins' application to be added as a party, Consented to by the respondents Ita Robbins et al in filed documents under File No: H130330, has yet to occur, though the dismissal of this application by Davies J. April 23, 2014 was properly appealed to BC Court of Appeal. For the further edification of decision makers in this Complaint (basis for Supreme Court of Canada appeal) understand THAT Bakonyi/Cambridge applied to the BC Court of Appeal for an order to have Glen P. Robbins appeal of Davies J. April 23, 2014 dismissed.
Bakonyi’s application for dismissal order was unsuccessful.
What is ironic particularly to the Canadian Human Rights Claim being pursued by Glen and Ita Robbins, is that dicta in the Transcript of this appeal application before Willcock J. of the BC Court of Appeal features Bakonyi and that Courts apparent indirect efforts to determine what tribe of Jewish - Robbins belonged to. (GPR is not a religious Jew though many believe Robbins is a Jewish name - the father not the mother --otherwise GPR submits he might own both Facebook and Google by now (lol)).
What is ironic particularly to the Canadian Human Rights Claim being pursued by Glen and Ita Robbins, is that dicta in the Transcript of this appeal application before Willcock J. of the BC Court of Appeal features Bakonyi and that Courts apparent indirect efforts to determine what tribe of Jewish - Robbins belonged to. (GPR is not a religious Jew though many believe Robbins is a Jewish name - the father not the mother --otherwise GPR submits he might own both Facebook and Google by now (lol)).
I/We believe the quality of the irony loaded into the Glen and Ita Robbins Civil Rights weaponry is clearly of better quality than Grauer J.’s irony with subsection 15 (5) of the (z)LPA BC. The Appeal of the Procedural Right of Audience and Order Nisi are still available to the Supreme Court of Canada - to this day!
Ita Robbins (only) technically needed to file a leave to appeal application to the BC Court of Appeal (normally required from foreclosure order (nisi) from the lower superior court), because she had already appealed the denial of her constitutional right to have her husband speak on her behalf at hearing through a regular appeal denoted on Supreme Court of Canada docket 35772, where she was seeking an extension of time to file the leave application seeking an extension of time to file the leave related to the order nisi.
The regular constitutional appeal captures the order nisi, because Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins Legal Rights were corrupted by Bakonyi/Cambridge - BMO/Ellis and the presiding Justice Fenlon in relation to the method and actions taken to obtain the order nisi.
Ita Robbins had the right to seek an extension of time to pursue an appeal of the order nisi, on the overall basis of how it was obtained, and more importantly, because it was necessary to appeal to ensure that a miscarriage of justice did not occur against Ita or Glen Robbins directly caused by the order nisi including having the corrupt notice of motion and petitioner document filed by Bakonyi/Cambridge.
Fenlon J. possessed no legal basis, nor a whiff of constitutional discretion for her lurid conduct at foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013 denying Ita Robbins ‘free speech rights’ in permitting her husband GPR of 30 years to attend a public hearing and defend her and his daughters. Keep in mind again when deliberating on Fenlon J.’s part in this massive fraud that she once worked for Elizabeth Lyall the Senior Partner at Vancouver law firm Fasken Martineau. Elizabeth Lyall was the high powered lawyer for the Law Society of BC swatted around like a mouse by the Big Cat - Glen P. Robbins before Justice Grauer (S111171) (35302).
The BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St. Vancouver BC has thus been out of control, or otherwise dishonest, corrupt or crooked and known about it for nearly a decade against either Glen or Ita Robbins. How many other British Columbians without legal counsel were cheated like this? Does it happen all of the time?
Subsection 15 (5) of the LPA no longer existed in the literal context it existed in October 2011 when Grauer J. made the order for it despite calling the language requiring amending as “redundant” and “unclear”.
15 (5) had been amended in May 2012 by the BC Legislature, stripping language from it that existing in Grauer J.’s order and in the ad hoc giving of it to Fenlon J. at the Foreclosure circus (distract delude) created by clearly conflicted (suspicious) conduct of Fenlon J. May 9,2013.
To this day no proper rendition of LPA BC subsection 15 (5) has been well concluded by judicial reasoning including Grauer J. 's. It is a very unsettled law. Over 24 years - what is the point of 15 (5)? It's embarrassing for the Courts, (not to mention costly to Ita & Glen Robbins). Had Glen P. Robbins' application to be added as a party been successful, one of the remedies under the BC Court Civil Rules is that the presiding Judge send H130330 the foreclosure hearing over to Trial Scheduling.
Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins had already filed the precise court case for such a court remedy under New Westminster BCSC 149328. Glen and Ita Robbins had filed a notice of claim under BCSC 149328, Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage, in New Westminster court (sister court to Vancouver)), which filing preceded in time, the filing of the Petition by Cambridge. It has yet to be heard.
Ita Robbins appeal of Conduct of Sale order from Master Tokarek has yet to receive a fair and proper hearing following Smith J’s ‘cooperation’ with criminals Bakonyi/Cambridge. A proper hearing of Ita Robbins appeal of Fenlon’s procedural order, (absent a proper consideration of the facts to withhold a right of audience to Glen P. Robbins), has yet to receive a fair proper hearing. The regular Appeal (BCCA) of the original foreclosure ‘hearing’, pertains to the hearing itself before Fenlon J. May 9, 2013.
Under BC Court of Appeal Rules, an order of foreclosure from the lower court, in this case (H130330), must be appealed through a leave (permission) to appeal application to the Court, governed by a different BC Court of Appeal Rule than a regular appeal to that (C)ourt. The application to the S.C.C. from H130330 under Supreme Court of Canada file No.: 35772 related to an application for an extension of time to file the leave application at BC Appeal Court, had no bearing on the ‘regular’ appeal which was filed and properly served although the regular appeal does ultimately capture the original foreclosure order (order nisi) of May 9, 2013.
The leave to appeal form and regular appeal from at the BC Court of appeal are different Forms, and dealt with under different BCCA court rules.
I/We believe that the right of audience butchery/perfidy by Fenlon J. at the May 9, 2013 foreclosure hearing, directly prejudiced Ita Robbins ability to receive a fair hearing of triable issues, relating to the unconscionable fraudulent loan agreement with criminal lenders Cambridge Mortgage/Peet & Cowan Financial, thus making the regular appeal a constitutional appeal of Ita Robbins right to a fair hearing, which would (again) capture the order nisi within its jurisdictional realm.
Evidence of a 98.7% (over 60% APR is a criminal offence) loan-mortgage by Cambridge to Ita Robbins, actually disclosed by the lender with tens of thousand in overcharges on top of a broker fee of $15,000 and $3,000 in legal fees, fees paid to BMO that should never have been charged and who had nothing to do with the loan - all there on British Columbia Government letterhead might be the first clue that something was wrong with your honours.
Ita and Glen Robbins insist their direct appeal to the BC Court of Appeal of the May 9, 2013 foreclosure hearing, dealt first with the procedural order of Fenlon J. to Glen P. Robbins right of audience, and thereafter to the order nisi (foreclosure), making the right of audience the first matter of appeal to be heard, followed behind by the order nisi order.
Accordingly, if Fenlon J.’s decision on Glen P. Robbins right of audience is struck as ridiculous on its face, then the order nisi obtained under false statements by Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO would suffer a similar result recognizing that the entire foreclosure petition hearing and order was predicated on an overall miscarriage of justice.
Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins did in fact hire a real lawyer in August 2014 to represent both ‘He & Her’ at the hearing of appeal for extension for time on leave to appeal the order nisi of May 9 2013 - (October 2013) before Justice Tysoe, adjourned until January 2014, where is was ultimately denied by Justice Saunders of the BC Court of Appeal from where it was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada S.C.C. 35772 Ita Robbins versus Cambridge Mortgage).
Again, nothing to do with the constitutional regular appeal (a leave to appeal application to the BC Court of Appeal does not encompass any constitutional provisions) and the reality that Ita Robbins had already captured the appeal of the order nisi within that constitutional general appeal. (3rd time). The pursuit of the application for leave to appeal specifically related to the order nisi to the Supreme Court of Canada 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage by Ita Robbins, was because it was her right to do so - covering all the bases it would seem.
How the Supreme Court of Canada panel would have denied her application which submissions including (1) the “criminal” loan agreement, (2) the mortgage registration document showing an entirely different Interest Rate to ensure the constructive fraud, and including (3) the Transcript of Proceedings embarrassing for the lawyer and the judge --beyond the pale.
The only justice on the SCC Panel hearing Ita Robbins 35772 appeal who is a woman is Abella J. (who (again) my nephew Ryan Dalziel clerked for).
Perhaps Abella J. (Martin, Paul) did side with Ita Robbins’ right for an extension of time to file the BCCA leave application against the order nisi. Perhaps when she reads this she might step forward into the light of day? Perhaps the other two men on the SCC Panel Moldover and Rothstein didn’t care about Ita Robbins, but there was nothing Abella J. could do on her own without the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014.
Abella J. is the 1st Jewish woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in its history. If this isn’t made right for Ita Robbins v Cambridge her important history especially as this concerns an obvious female rights property rights issue - a woman being forced out, cheated out of her home (by corrupt lawyers and judges) and Canada’s 1st Jewish woman a judge is rendered meaningless for pieces of Silver.
I can’t believe it? What happens to the credibility of the poor Court Clerks in a situation like this? What about “KO” the Court Clerk for Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014. Can she remain silent?
On that note, I would ask the reader to consider that Ita Robbins’ husband Glen P. Robbins easily obtains an extension of time to file his leave to appeal application from the Supreme Court of Canada in Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC (S.C.C. 35302) & is further permitted an extension of time to file his application for extension of time to file Intervenor application in Google v Equustek (36602). -while Ita Robbins is not permitted an extension of time in a matter involving her home and a 98.7% Interest Rate involving her home of more than two decades - where she raised her two daughters (the Jane Does) in SCC 35772, by the 3 (Jewish) Judges on the Supreme Court of Canada Panel who have “Read” all of the actual documents under Affidavit.
(Just being consistent with “irony”).
In October 2013 before BC Court of Appeal (Justice Tysoe), settlement was also made between Bakonyi/Cambridge for BakonyiCambridge (Peet & Cowan Financial), to pay for and provide to Ita Robbins, an actuarial assessment of loan they (Peet & Cowan Financial) had themselves self assessed at 98.7% on its face a criminal loan.
Bakonyi/Cambridge knowingly went before Tysoe J. and failed to disclose triable issues and his/it’s & Bob Ellis’s BMO fraud on the court May 28, 2013 through the completely fraudulent Order Made After Application. Bakonyi/Cambridge did not disclose to Tysoe J., anything to do with the criminal Order Made After Application, a fraudulent document implicating Tysoe J. and later Saunders J. of the BC Court of Appeal and thus contaminating the file at court of appeal circa October 2013.
Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins had obtained legal counsel in Ross Davidson and cleverly directed Davidson to attend to hearing before Tysoe J. that day read into the record of the Court Transcript and thereafter Bakonyi/Cambridge, clearly nervous, was asked to make arrangements with Glen P. Robbins, who had deftly remained outside the courtroom in the corridor on a court hearing following Tysoe J.’s adjournment of the matter that day.
Glen & Ita Robbins do everything to try to settle including formal mediation.
Bakonyi/Cambridge agreed to produce the actuarial, then reneged, an action befitting the typecasting being ascribed to his ethnocentricity.
In November 2013 - Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins filed a Notice to Mediate in New Westminster courthouse under their lawsuit File No: 149328 (the lawsuit against Cambridge) and served it upon Bakonyi/Cambridge.
In court transcript before Arnold Bailey J. Bakonyi/Cambridge in another court matter admits to being served with the Notice to Mediate. BC Civil Rules call for any party served with a Notice to Mediate under the provisions of process and procedure to comply with the Notice to Mediate and to attend a mediation. Bakony/Cambridge breach the BC Civil Rules compelling parties to Mediation. Information gleaned from Mediation can be used adversely against a party. Bakonyi/Cambridge cannot legally ignore the Mediation. If the Mediation is initiated properly it is legally mandated.
Bakonyi/Cambridge breached the BC Civil Rules (sold like steak to a starving man on BC Attorney General website) by not responding to the Notice to Mediate document in November 2013 within the time required under the Rules for producing a hearing.
A Mediation could have been arranged for February or March 2014. Bakonyi/Cambridge would have come to a Mediated settlement with Ita Robbins et al weeks before he created his second fraud on the court and Ita and Glen Robbins April 23, 2014 & April 24, 2014 in breach of the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J of April 7, 2014.
This is not evidence of good faith.
The Mediation demand can be used against the offending party in the main lawsuit. In actions against the State and sub State actors, and because of the power and money of the State and sub State actors they must prove good faith first, and if good faith is not found, then bad faith must be found to have occurred.
Is there a shred of good faith found among the State and sub State in these legal cases involving Ita and Glen Robbins?
It should be noted that a Notice to Mediate need not be filed with the Court registry. For good reason, Glen and Ita Robbins did file it - and serve it. This Notice to Mediate angle is important - again in Summer 2015 Glen P. Robbins (Ita Robbins) served a Notice to Mediate to the Government of British Columbia (again) under 149328. Mediation presumes the chance at settlement and mitigation of damage.
In this instance, the BC Attorney General’s legal counsel (BC Government) contacted GPR (IR) in writing saying he will arrange a date to Mediate when he returns in early September (2015) from holidays, but upon his return throws good faith out the door and asserts he refused Mediation because the Notice to Mediate did not include Chief Justice Hinkson’s April 10 2014 corrupted vexatious litigant order *(S111171) demanding notice of required leave to appeal.
Again, the corrupt order of Hinkson CJ related only to court filings and had no jurisdiction over the Notice to Mediate document which was not required to be filed. Now, Hinkson CJ’s vexatious procedure (‘litigant libel’) order only covered newly instituted actions. In law any claim instituted involves a new claim only.
Vexatious proceedings 18 “If, on application by any person, the court is satisfied that a person has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds, instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the Provincial Court against the same or different persons, the court may, after hearing that person or giving him or her an opportunity to be heard, order that a legal proceeding must not, without leave of the court, be instituted by that person in any court.” The reader can see the provisions are stipulated as “Vexatious proceedings”, the *vexatious litigant language is not used formally from either the Supreme Court of Canada or the Federal Court.
It is a language de facto designed to be used to libel non lawyers, and to maintain the control of legal processesses within law societies, not dissimilar to control of money supply (wink and nod here). There appears to be a discernible pool of non lawyer litigants, unwilling to pay $350 average per hour to a real lawyer, often barely competent, or not competent at all. Many of these ‘pro se’ lawyers are better than the average lawyer, they end up being libelled as vexatious litigants rather than being challenged for vexatious actions in a particular case.
In British Columbia, more than a few non lawyer litigants have been similarly caught up in the net of incompetent legal drafting of subsection 15 (5). Section 15 (5) makes the entire legal community in British Columbia look completely dishonest with Intent, and further, makes them appear rather stupid for not seeing it, or alternatively they did see it, and went to extraordinary lengths to cover this up as well as the major fraud put upon Ita Robbins.
Chris Hinkson appears ‘dirty’ in his efforts to bury 15 (5). On the evidence provided. Glen P. Robbins response to Application under *S111171 was not “Read” by Chief Justice Chris Hinkson though information relating to Grauer J. (S111171) (35302) and BC ‘courtscam’ *S111171 was Read by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown in 2016 under Google v Equustek (the ‘criminal expose’).
*****Glen P. Robbins writes a letter to Chris Hinkson CJ February 2014 demanding he inform Justice Grauer of the contempt of his Reasons for Judgement by members of the Law Society of BC - Hinkson writes back informing Glen P. Robbins he won’t permit it. Grauer J’s Reasons for Judgment are thus universally held in contempt by the Law Society of BC who sought the order in the first place, and subsequently by fellow judges, even more contemptible.
This exchange prior to the vexatious litigant result informs the Reader that Hinkson CJ had an opportunity to stop the problems being created by LSBC Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger who knew full well he was obstructing justice.
The vexatious procedure Rule 8 application, ‘faked’ as petition to Chief Justice Hinkson (who was working hard to pretend to be deceived) by corrupt LSBC Officer Kleisinger, both of these State actors (federal and provincial state actors) appointed to their positions, both knew the process of filing at court registry was intentionally made in haste, in breach of the BC Rules, in an attempt to distract or overwhelm Glen and Ita Robbins in multiple court activities.
In this rushed hearing the Chief Justice was so eager to get Glen Robbins he didn’t bother to even read Glen P. Robbins Application.
No judge (in their correct independent mind) would have made the order for vexatious litigant. At all times this combo LSBC/Chief Justice fraud’s real objective was as a cover for the larger fraud intended by Bakonyi/Cambridge at the Supreme Court of Canada located thousands of miles away in Ottawa. This assertion is supported by the fact that the Province of British Columbia had deregulated non Bank lending in BC - disconnecting itself from the Interest Act of Canada.
Keep in mind while reading this, that Chris Hinkson is lawfully considered a BC Court of Appeal Judge. Accordingly *S111171 *(BCSC 1310) (or whichever court ‘rock’ its hidden under these days) is thus appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In Glen P. Robbins ‘legal opinion’ his appeal of “cheater” Chris Hinkson’s vexatious litigant order, can be made as a direct appeal to that Court, on the basis that the decision was made by a *Supreme Court Justice Chief Justice under the Supreme Court Act (BC).
It follows then that the Supreme Court of Canada case file 35302 Glen P. Robbins versus The Law Society of BC currently listed as closed (closed after the *S111171) should be ‘reopened’ given how Hinkson CJ has perverted the course of justice under 35302 (S111171) AND 35772 H130330.
In denying a Reading of Glen P. Robbins defence/prosecution application, Hinkson ignores Glen P. Robbins Legal Rights under S111171 where all of the details of the misdeeds in Civil filing undertaken by the LSBC, are written across the top of the front page of the Applications, including GPR’s PROTEST in the Court Record that the documents were related to a petition (an “instituting” document) & further warning the court of the fraud occurring.
If Glen P. Robbins had written his protest regarding Abuse of Process/Power across Chris Hinkson’s forehead, he likely would have ignored it.
Each day that Chris Hinkson sits on the Bench is a fraud on the Public Interest. How many other British Columbians were defrauded by lawyers/judges associated with the legal industry/cartel involving Interest Rates and real estate because of Chris Hinkson ---- Austin Cullen? Remember in accusing Chris Hinkson CJ of Abuse of Office/Power a benefit must be identified. This benefit is not one most people think of like cash or power/influence/appointment. I/We only need to show Intent - Intent equals benefit.
At the time this defence document was filed, GPR was unaware of the collusion between Hinkson, Kleisinger and the BC Attorney General for BC Superior Court filings. Glen P. Robbins is able to say that he was not properly heard at Trial under fraud filing *S111171. This court fraud was undertaken by Kleisinger of LSBC and Hinkson CJ under an Abuse of their Power and access to the courts, through their proximity and control of the court’s administration, to eviscerate the Legal Rights of Glen P. Robbins and by extension of his premeditated actions the Legal Rights of Ita Robbins.
By not reading Glen P. Robbins defence/prosecution application, and being arrogant enough to admit to it, Hinkson CJ was denying a full defence to Glen P. Robbins. Hinkson was thus working and honing his new fraud upon Glen P. Robbins following his 2001 efforts in his ‘role’ as Law Society lawyer to (indirectly) have Glen P. Robbins publicly declared a pedophile knowing there was no evidence of it anywhere, and knowing that no one had accused him of the same.
If these documents were provided to a reasonable person armed with these facts, they would see the huge BOLD writing of Glen P. Robbins at the very top of his response to the LSBC application - and tie this - Hinksons’ ignorance of this reality in context of the miscarriage of civil filings by LSBC- and would in a real country demand his resignation and an Inquiry into his actions.
This Complaint is the opportunity to satisfy this on behalf of that theoretical reasonable Canadian. A Stay of Proceedings with extreme prejudice should be placed against Hinkson CJ’s obviously corrupt legal shenanigans order with former law partner LSBC’s Michael Kleisinger on *S111171 dated April 11, 2014.
*S111171 is the ‘scam’ version of the ‘legitimate’ hearing before Grauer J. (S111171) (S.C.C. 35302). Hinkson CJ and his associates in the BCGEU at BC Supreme Court Vancouver have since attempted to bury *S111171 under a new file *BCSC 1310 (S111171).
I/We are also seeking a Stay of Proceedings on H130330 on May 28, 2013 sufficient to capture the criminal act of the Bakonyi/Cambridge, Robert Ellis/BMO Court fraud of the Order Made After Application. For the Legal Record, Glen P. Robbins shall seek a reopening of S.C.C. 35302 Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC (on the basis described herein) from the Supreme Court of Canada, and seek further remedies thereafter beyond this as this relates to the matter of subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Profession Act (BC).
A remedy at SCC on BC LPA 15 (5) will automatically kick out the May 9, 2013 foreclosure order of Fenlon J under H130330 making the legal link and remedies between these two files complete. (This is where the Legal Nullity works most efficiently). Easy
Also, any stipulation by Hinkson CJ as to requirements (order) against Glen P. Robbins for interlocutory applications and affidavits by Hinkson CJ’s should have no bearing on 149328 (New Westminster) in any event as 149328 was commenced/instituted 15 months before Hinkson made his order under *S111171 April 10 2014, and a Notice to Mediate is not a document which requires filing.
Hinkson CJ interferes in New Westminster litigation 149328 Ita Robbins & Glen P. Robbins versus Cambridge Mortgage, Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, BMO Bank, this time to save both lawyer Bakonyi & Cambridge Mortgage, which action, we believe, serves to complete our case and cause our Complaint of Abuse of Office against Chris Hinkson to be deemed to be Intentional Bad Faith.
Hinkson CJ’s order of April 10, 2014 only covered the lengths of applications and affidavit, it did not cover the enclosures of the affidavit. He so rushed his fraudulent conduct he produced an incomplete order. Glen P. Robbins asserts Hinkson was a cheater as a lawyer and is in our opinion a cheater as a judge. Without government intervention, Chris Hinkson will be the first judge in Canadian history to be sued for tens of millions of dollars in his own name. Who else might join him?
Glen P. Robbins asserts Hinkson was a cheater as a lawyer and is in our opinion a cheater as a judge. Without government intervention, Chris Hinkson will be the first judge in Canadian history to be sued for tens of millions of dollars in his own name. Who else might join him?
Such a lawsuit at Federal Court of Canada with unlimited capacity for damages will be accompanied in time by Glen P. Robbins special operation investigation of persons in High Office inclusive of their families for unedited publishing. (It's already underway).
The State Immunities Act might provide for Trial in Florida or California.
These exposes will be promoted over social media. For edification, Glen P. Robbins has the potential to take any person's name included in the 1300 different entries and make those entries first page links. So for example his links to former BC Premier Gordon Campbell’s Office girlfriend will become his personal legacy going forward, everywhere.
How could Hinkson CJ have accepted an interlocutory (internal claim application) to another case file involving completely different subject matter which under the BC Civil Rules requires a petition?
For readers edification and context this massive court fraud went on while BC Lawyers were draining The Insurance Corporation of BC of resources, upwards of a Billion dollars per year ($$$$$)}. Hinkson is a long time Law Society insider.
The Escalation of Complaint occurs as prescribed under the law Following this mistake in judgment from BC Attorney General Litigation Services lawyer to participate in the lawfully prescribed Mediation process because of the corrupt Hinkson CJ - Kleisinger LSBC order, a complaint was made to BC Ombudsperson (ir)responsible for Government processes in this regarding the filing of documents at BC Court Registry. Again, the BC Civil Rules did not require a Mediation document be filed.
In conjunction with this Complaint, an Offer to Settle was made by Ita Robbins to the Government of BC on a without prejudice basis in the amount of $950,000 relating to replacement of her her home and belongings, with notice to her insurer Wawanesa to the Government of British Columbia, BC Attorney General responsible for BC Courts and court filing at registry’s permitting documents to be filed, which they knew ought not have been accepted.
This formal Offer was made to the BC Attorney General in October 2013.
These filings included: (1) The original petition under H130330 where triable issues well known to the petitioner were NOT included in the supporting affidavit; (2) The Notice of Hearing document was accepted by court registry in non compliance with the BC Civil Rules, namely the Notice of Hearing document, which was filed prior to the respondent’s time for filing a response, and did not properly disclose the respondents known desire for a hearing, instead indicating that the petitioner Cambridge and (respondent) BMO Bank had spoken to the respondents and 5 minutes before a Master was required.
Glen Robbins and Ita Robbins meeting with BC Lawyer Ross Davidson following the foreclosure order established his professional advice that the Notice of Hearing document was sufficiently deficient on its own to ask for another hearing.
Item (3) is an Order Made After Application a complete and obvious fraud on the court, jointly filed by Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO for which there is No (zilch nothing) actual Application easily determined at a glance from BC Court Services at courthouse registry. This Order Made After Application fraud can be discovered in 30 seconds.
This Offer to Settle was made without prejudice with time limitation for acceptance. No response to the Offer to Settle was ever made to GPR & IR by the Government of BC, BC Attorney General.
Through this Fall 2013 period Glen P. Robbins also provided the BC Attorney General and Law Society of BC of the following: (1) GPR’s & IR’s intention to file a class action in BC against unregulated Mortgage Brokers; (2) GPR’s intention to obtain Default Judgment over the Hinkson/BCHRT interference with court process & “Pedophile” Libel (3) GPR’s intention to sue the Law Society of BC over its members action at foreclosure, and (4) Michael Kleisingers’ threats to hold GPR in contempt of Grauer J.’s October 2, 2011 15 (5) order if he showed up to court.
Kleisinger, the Law Society of BC, its members Ron Bakonyi/Cambridge & Robert Ellis/BMO Bank of Montreal, the BC Government, including BC Court Services, were ALL underwater with rampant fraud.

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