Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.:8 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

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. The Original Appeal to BC Court of Appeal of the breach of GPR’s constitutional rights to a fair hearing in relation to Right of Audience and Order Nisi plus inappropriate application of Grauer J.’s order of October 3, 2011 AND Ita Robbins right to a fair hearing--collective Court contempt of that order S111171.
The regular appeal filed by Glen and Ita Robbins at BC Court of Appeal, was undefended by Bakonyi/Cambridge pursuant to the Rules, and has not received a fair hearing, as the time for considering this appeal has been exhausted due to inaction. Bakonyi/Cambridge did not provide ‘GPR & IR’ with an application for extension of time to file its defence to the regular Appeal filed by Ita and Glen Robbins.
I/We believe the Order Made Application constitutes a criminal act under the Criminal Code of Canada, and that Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO should serve at least 90 days of criminal sentence.
All efforts were made by GPR & Ita Robbins to deal with these clearly illegal document filings including the original foreclosure petition, which ultimately tipped the advantage to the foreclosing party Cambridge. These actions included: (1) complaints to the Law Society of British Columbia, (2) BC Attorney General, (3) complaints to BC Ombudsperson, (4) finally, a complaint to the Chief Justice (BC Court of Appeal) Robert Bauman.
Thereafter, “escalation” efforts were made to obtain a Cabinet Order with service on BC John Horgan (personally), and at Office of Premier (BC) inclusive of offers to settle the matter, (either publicly or privately), as is necessary through the prescribed Rules for escalation of complaint.
The BC Ombudsperson is responsible for screw ups at the court registry and other matters involving government. Not even the courtesy of a response. This Offer to Settle from Ita Robbins served upon John Horgan personally and upon the Premier of British Columbia’s Office & New Democrat government was for $22,000,000 including a public apology in the BC Legislature.
Two different standards of justice and compensation.
The Boss Power multi million dollar ‘giveaway’ cited in Hansard Transcript provided in the 172 page legal analysis “Binder” including John Horgan’s (provincial) reference to the high dollar ‘gift’, as well as reference to the Arar settlement (federal) were used as comparables for Ita Robbins Settlement Offer, submitted to John Horgan “In Personam” as well as Premier John Horgan as the apex of the escalation in the Province of British Columbia.
Two months later, Horgan was served with another Offer to Settle from Ita Robbins et al for $14,500,000, with the condition that if this was settled with Ita Robbins, then Glen P. Robbins wouldn’t sue for any party (including John Horgan himself) connected to these activities for financial compensation.
Who in their right mind would want to defend a massive dollar Federal Court action against them from Glen P. Robbins? Who in their right mind would want the exposure of fighting a potential Glen P. Robbins lawsuit against them personally in the State of California or Florida?
Or is there something that we don’t know - like some unwritten law that ordinary people cannot be seen to beating real lawyers at their own game or being incentivized to sue banks and corporations without having to pay for a lawyer? {GPR says ‘u know who’}
Glen P. Robbins will seek $150,000,000 himself for loss of business, the pedophile business and the court frauds. Well done John Horgan who had a chance to pay Ita Robbins her due and have Glen P. Robbins put his guns away in the process. Who in their right mind would have let this scam continue?
Who in their right mind wants Glen P. Robbins Public Relations, Research, and ‘Special Ops’ on the family doorstep? Would you like the RCMP detaining you aiding and abetting the theft of all your property aiding and abetting a massive State sanctioned real estate fraud? This story is not secret. Where was the RCMP’s order for attendance at Honeysuckle Lane? Answer: there isn’t one.
Wait until we stitch Canadian Media to the pedophile matter, and Chris Hinkson when he was a lawyer.
Stealing a person’s property is a very personal thing don’t you know. (Yes, indeed a (lawful) threat might be inferred from that). Using the courts and High Office to get the job done is a sign of a province/country that is quite sick, with no apparent capacity to make itself better. If someone in John Horgan, Justin Trudeau, Chris Hinkson, and others legal shoes is sued in the Federal Court of Canada “In Personam”, and claims a taxpayer funded legal defence, applies to the court for just this, and is refused, it could cost them thousands of their own dollars. Glen P. Robbins will fight ‘them’ without ruth but within the rules of the court and within his constitutional right to free speech to ensure taxpayer dollars do not help political elites escape their fate.
Its in the Public’s Interest to blow the lid off the Wizard of Oz type fraud. A full defence might require hundreds of thousands of dollars. What will your spouse think about this?
What if these 3 are then found to have been negligent or have acted in bad faith in their position in a manner the public would consider reckless to Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins, including not taking steps to mitigate further damage to Ita and Glen Robbins - it could financially wipe them and their families out. The Court cover ups have all been used up.
Post Coronavirus - and changes occurring in the relationship between the People and the State as a consequence, the old indemnifications claimed by those in High Office are flying out the door. A politician cannot ask taxpayers to pay legal fees to defend him or herself In Personam, or avoid dealing with serious charges of criminal conduct.
If politicians and judges don’t answer to this legally they may ultimately suffer through the scope of Glen P. Robbins polling site expansion at Their names will be up in the public light, including personal and family secrets they would rather not have made public. Again, not even the courtesy of a response from John Horgan/Premier Horgan who attended the same public schools as Glen P. Robbins and knew about GPR’s 6 brothers and sisters - a very successful family (no fluke).
The $11,500,000 Offer to Settle to the Federal Government of Canada was sent to Justin Trudeau at his constituency office and the PMO’s Office. The Government of BC, the Government of Canada, The City of Vancouver (where the Vancouver courthouse is located), and the City of Coquitlam are responsible at law.
Justin Trudeau’s non response and lack of credibility involving the Jody Wilson Raybould as Attorney General of Canada, the Government of Canada, PMO and SNC Lavalin matter may not help his credibility in continuing to ignore this matter like BC Premier Horgan. Both BC Premier John Horgan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are fully aware that the massive court fraud outlined to them, including delivery of all draft versions prior to submittal to them in “Binder”, has occurred in matters involving both Senior levels of government including the Interest Act (Canada), BC Court Rules, and Criminal Code of Canada. Both John Horgan and Justin Trudeau are therefore aware of the criminal enterprise that occurred in the Courts, at court registry, the latter the responsibility of BCGEU and Deputy Attorney General operating under contract with both BC Chief Justices, and are thus as “Read” in, in terms of the facts of the matter, as Brown J. of the Supreme Court of Canada.
BCSC (S111171) (SCC 35302) Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins is inextricably intermingled and interwoven with causal evidence and subject matter mutual to H130330 (SCC H130330 35772) (IRobbins v Cambridge).
BCSC (S111171) is misused by Law Society of BC’s Michael Kleisinger & fellow secret society “Mason” and law partner Chris Hinkson,-to produce Frankenstein version now known as *(S111171) intended to cover up the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J., April 7, 2014 valid until April 30, 2014. and the May 31, 2013 Intentional fraud of the Order Made After Application.
Why the ‘cover up’?
A Stay of Execution Order filed (along with court registry court clerk notes April 8-9, 2014) would also have to be disclosed to the Supreme Court of Canada 35772 both springing from the same file BCSC H130330, and pursuant to the Supreme Court Act (Supreme Court of Canada).
The fraud would have been discovered had the Stay of Execution Order been filed immediately at BC Civil Filing and Supreme Court of Canada as was required by BC Civil Rules (these Rules are considered with the same legal weight as a Statute under law).
A grotesque fraud on the Court. A worse fraud on Ita Robbins.
Ita Robbins et al had filed an application for a Stay of Execution Order with the Supreme Court of Canada 35772, along with an application to extend the time for filing the leave to appeal application, at the BC Court of Appeal. Her application is dismissed by the S.C.C. but with no Costs attached to that order.
“Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA040954, dated January 28, 2014, is dismissed with costs.” “The motions filed pursuant to Rule 32(2) are granted in part without costs. The applicants’ Reply to the response to the Application for leave to appeal and Reply to the response to their motion for a stay of execution shall be submitted to the panel. All other requests made by the applicants to file additional materials are dismissed without costs. Allowed in part, without costs”
One can see that Ita Robbins Stay of Execution application converts automatically at the Supreme Court of Canada from Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution Order made April 7, 2014 once it is filed at the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Why did the Supreme Court of Canada Panel of (3) (z)Jewish judges not provide the Stay of Execution Order? The subject matter was an extension of time to file a leave to appeal at BC Court of Appeal. Ita and Glen Robbins had already filed a regular appeal.
The Panel had possession of the ridiculous foreclosure hearing events of May 9, 2013 and clear evidence of the BC Government documents used by Peet & Cowan Financial (Cambridge Mortgage original agreement) and evidence of 98.7% Interest charges.
More Made in Canada Court Cover up?
Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins take the position that the availability of the court clerk notes, and tape of Kloegman J. clearly making the Stay of Execution Order on tape April 7, 2014.
This means the order actually existed in the BC Supreme Court Registry a day or two before the Order by Fraud arranged between Michael Kleisinger (LSBC) and Chris Hinkson CJ (former law partners with the same law firm,members of the same Masonic society, both conducting their careers as lawyers working Law Society of BC cases) for hearing March 21, 2014 with reserve judgment April 10, 2014.
The fact that Ron Bakonyi/Cambridge did not file the Stay of Execution Order should not detract from the reality that the Justice made the order, but also that BC Court Services (BC Attorney General) possessed it as well. The order of Kloegman J. is thus ‘filed’ with the court registry which includes Trial Scheduling.
Whether or not anyone could have practically predicted that Mr. Bakonyi and or his client Cambridge would go so ‘rogue’ looking back, is not the problem of Ita Robbins or Glen P. Robbins who did their job and obtained the Stay of Execution Order.
Had Bakonyi/Cambridge filed the Stay of Execution Order under H130330 as Kloegman J. directed him to do, then the Supreme Court of Canada would have also been required to receive this order 35772 and would have had to Stay the appeal hearing on the application for extension of time to file leave to appeal of the order nisi, until such time as the matters of the outstanding application of Glen P. Robbins to be added as party, and Ita Robbins appeal of Conduct of Sale order would have to be heard based upon Ita Robbins application for Stay of Execution to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Given that Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins were the parties who were granted authority (by Kloegman J.) to contact Trial Scheduling at Vancouver courthouse 800 Smithe Street under civil registry File No.: H130330, to identify and secure a hearing date, in conjunction with Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution Order, there is no excuse or explanation for Bakonyi/Cambridge’s malfeasance and court fraud, or for his/it contempt of Judicial orders, nor any excuse or explanation for the actions taken by Kleisinger of LSBC or his former law buddy Chris Hinkson CJ to use their Office to cover it up.
Their mutual manipulation of court processes was Intentional. Bakonyi/Cambridge has no avenue of escape owing to the preponderance of evidence that what he was doing was wrong.
It bears repeating that when Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins contacted Trial Scheduling following the extinguishment of Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution Order on April 30, 2014, Trial Scheduling Manager Sue Smolen refused to accept the (H130330) booking of the Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins Trial Hearing Date owing to the order of... ...Chris Hinkson made *April 10, 2014 against Glen P. Robbins in LSBC v. Glen P. Robbins *(S111171). S111171 having nothing whatsoever to do with H130330.
Sue Smolen Manager Trial Scheduling Manager BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC was acting in Contempt of Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution order H130330. Trial Scheduling is the Civil Filing Court desk connected to the Justices (chambers) including the Chief Justice. Because Trial scheduling is known to have been telephoned from the Courtroom during the Hearing before Kloegman J. H130330 to Determine if there was any Trial Date available for April 23 or 24 2014, a bad week conveyed to the Court Clerk “KO” then at Vancouver courthouse, the earliest time to secure any date, would not occur until the 1st week of May 2014.
-By denying Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins the opportunity to establish this Court directed hearing date, and because of Trial Scheduling's administrative connection to justices, both Ita and Glen P. Robbins want to include this most recent action of the Trial Scheduling in the spring summer 2019 described herein, as part of their overall bad faith Complaint to the CJC herein, and to subsequent Supreme Court of Canada applications If necessary). Following the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. provided by Her Ladyship to Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins April 7, 2014:
Having checked online for available hearing dates, and knowing the first week of May 2014 was the first time a hearing date could be identified, at least from the Vancouver courthouse @ 800 Smithe St., - Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins, Husband & Wife Barristers & Solicitors - knew that hearing dates at Trial Scheduling for half day, one day or more were not available until July or August 2014.
On April 7, 2014 when Kloegman J. made her Stay of Execution Order valid until April 30, 2014, she also heard Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins Stay of Proceedings application on the basis of the court fraud Order Made After Application of May 28, 2014 H130330 (which had it been so ordered would have ended the Bakonyi/Cambridges foreclosure process for good).
Instead, Kloegman J. decided all of the matters before her should go to Trial Scheduling and granted Glen P. Robbins (his application was scheduled to be heard first), and or Ita Robbins (similarly affected), direction to obtain a Trial Date for hearing all matters.
No Trial Date has been properly provided by the Courts pursuant to Kloegman J.’s order. The BC Superior Courts continue to this day to act in Contempt of Kloegman J.’s order, “ironic” given Kloegman J.’s retirement from the Bench on the same day of the home invasion against Ita Robbins and her family home and property involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The matter of the order nisi (foreclosure) extension of time for Ita Robbins et al to file a leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada under 35772 was heard in June 2014.
Had the Stay of Execution Order made by Kloegman J. H130330, been filed by Bakonyi/Cambridge as he/it was obligated to do, (the BC Civil Rules permit for Urgent filing of Judicial Orders) as the urgent circumstance required, then I/We believe there would have been an automatic Stay of Execution Order on file 35772 at the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court of Canada Rules.
Bakonyi/Cambridge decided instead of losing their unconscionable loan amount, they themselves denoted at 98.7%, to commit their fraud upon the BC Supreme Court (H130330) and Ita Robbins, with no regard for her well being.
Thereafter, Bakonyi/Cambridge H130330 carried on the fraud through the BC Court of Appeal & Supreme Court of Canada, a trifecta of court fraud S.C.C. 35772. The April 10, 2014 Hinkson CJ-Kleisinger LSBC abuse of court (obstruction of justice) ‘hooks up’ with Cambridge Mortgage fraud.
The allegation presented to Judge Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada under Intervener applications in Google v Equustek (S.C.C. 36602) (2016), was THAT: The Law Society of BC’s Kleisinger, and BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Hinkson, consciously took action against Glen P. Robbins *(S111171), to assist Bakonyi/Cambridge (Ellis Roadburg/BMO) with their fraud(s) on the court against him & Ita Robbins H130330, (and Contempt of Court Orders and court fraud occurring originally on May 28, 2013 related to the filing of fraudulent Order Made After Application document with BC Supreme Court registry) H130330----- ----- and more particularly to assist Bakonyi/Cambridge (Ellis Roadburg/BMO) with their fraud on the court against Ita Robbins H130330, and Contempt of Court orders and court fraud occurring on April 7th, (8th), (9th), 23rd, 24th & 30th 2014 under H130330, as well as March 8, 2014 March 21, April 10, 2014 (S111171) (Kleisinger & Hinkson CJ) and March 25, 2015 (149328 New Westminster registry) (Hinkson CJ).
It was coordinated and Intentional.
Ronald Bakonyi, Cambridge’s lawyer, while the Stay of Execution Order freeze period was in place (April 7th, 2014 until April 30, 2014) $$- went behind the backs of Ita and Glen P. Robbins, like a common thief, and went before two BC Supreme Justices, Davies J. and Smithe J., to obtain orders of: (1) dismissal against Glen P. Robbins application to be added as party, and (2) Ita Robbins, the respondent’s appeal of the conduct of sale order.
The performance of Davies J. and Smith J. is nothing to write home about in this pathetic saga of court corruption and malfeasance perpetrated by Bakonyi/Cambridge reaching an apex of fraud and corruption during his attendance to court on April 23rd & 24th, 2014-. (H130330)
BC Court Services Managers had indicated that H130330 was by most measure a “huge file”. Why both justices weren’t just a ‘wee bit suspicious’ that Bakonyi attended on his own (ex parte), knowing full well the likelihood of Glen P. Robbins not showing was preposterous. It's “Unbelievable”. (a good storyline for the next season eh?).
Davies J. knew that non lawyer Glen P. Robbins was a ‘High Noon’ take no prisoners Barrister, having watched Robbins force His Lordship to close a packed courtroom versus Peter Lee of Davis & Co. lawyers calling Lee a liar in that courtroom in a 1996 Hearing where Glen P. Robbins, non lawyer, no formal legal education, kicked the experience Lee to the curb. (Please note SCC Judge Brown (Harper, Stephen) was working for the same firm at the same time).
Robbins was correct, that lawyer in the 1996 Hearing was a liar, got caught and Glen P. Robbins won the application. It was this application before Barry Davies in CIBC versus Tannis Enterprises where Davies J. ordered that “Mr. Robbins be treated as a lawyer at all times.”
It is ironic to note that Peter Lee’s predecessor in the case boasted to GPR that he was neighbours with the judge (intimidation). GPR informed the judge at this initial hearing who recused herself from the case, adjourned it giving rise to Peter Lee and the event described. (A lot of historical irony with BC lawyers eh?)
Glen P. Robbins claimed this order as his basis for contending he ought to be able to represent his wife in the legal case Ita Robbins v Bank of Montreal before Adair J. (Adair J. in the Ita Robbins v BMO matter 15 years had guessed (lots of that going on) Davies J. (1996) didn’t mean this literally).
Glen P. Robbins claims that at all times, and at all places, he believed he was to be ‘treated as a lawyer at all times’ whenever he attended a courtroom. Adair J. had no business interpreting that order of Davies J. (see CIBC v Tannis, Tannis and Joseph Dauo) 1996 (1st Hearing by Madame Justice Linda Loo).
Isn’t Adair J. is a different name than Davies J.?
Adair J. (*Harper, Stephen) ought to have determined Davies J.’s intention of that order, an order which Davie J. disregarded at the illegal ex parte hearing on April 23, 2014 by Bakonyi/Cambridge, opting instead for Hinkson CJ’s vexatious litigant order of April 10, 2014 obtained through a manipulation of court processes and intended to cover up the crimes of Law Society members. *some bad choices Steve - GPR This means that Davies J.’s order of 1996 that Glen P. Robbins be ‘treated as a lawyer at all times’ granted Glen P. Robbins the extraordinary status of a real lawyer, (still) without the ability to collect a fee or benefit.
The Law Society did not appeal this order, notwithstanding Davies J. 's commenting on Court Transcript at the time, that the ‘Law Society of BC did not object to Glen P. Robbins attending to speak in the courtroom’.
Crooked BC Supreme Court Justice Hinkson’s corrupt order obtained with confederate LSBC Michael Kleisinger changes Barry Davies mind.
I would note as well the irony that it was in 1996 that the original “clumsy” “redundant” words Grauer J. attributed in 2011 to subsection 15 (5) in Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins (S111171)- was first put into law. How many cases involving 15 (5) occurred prior to Grauer J.’s Reasons? Only a few, and as Grauer J. insists in his Reasons neither Superior Court has decided it.
So in 2011 15 (5) is tested against GPR and Grauer J. not only declared that 15 (5) wasn’t the primary issue before him, he Reasoned that its value to context of the Petitions of the Law Society v GPR (S111171) is secondary to 15 (4).
Despite this, 15 (5) (alone) became the ammunition of choice for the Law Society of BC to ultimately foreclose Ita Robbins of her home and property, all just to cover up the lending and legal improprieties going on in the province with the knowledge of government, the legal profession and some judges.
On April 23rd 2014 a Day that will remain in infamy (see ‘Robbins Roosevelt’) for years to come, when ‘crooked’ BC Law Society lawyer Ron Bakonyi 1st initiates his court fraud/contempt of judicial order of Kloegman J. before Barry Davies J., there was no Stay of Execution Order on the court file H130330 because Bakonyi/Cambridge didn’t file it.
Did Cambridge (Peet & Cowan) owners instruct Bakonyi to commit fraud against Ita Robbins in order to cause her harm? A lawyer is supposed to take direction from his clients, but must reject committing a crime in so doing.
The Stay of Execution Order WAS technically filed with the Court as court clerk notes and Voice Transcript of Justice Kloegmans’ April 7, 2014 and clear as a bell Stay of Execution Order - the necessary elements of a lawful Judicial order were in the Court by April 9, 2014.
Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins were the successful applicants on April 7, 2014.
Ultimately, Bakonyi/Cambridge committed his/its fraud against Ita Robbins (& Glen P. Robbins), weaponizing corrupt Chief Justice Chris Hinkson’s vexatious litigant order of April 10, 2014 , made three days after the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. April 7, 2014, AND placing Hinksons’ order right under the nose of both Davies J. & Smithe J. on each of April 23rd & April 24th, 2014 hearings, where he obtained dismissal orders across the board during the ex parte Hearings.
Doesn’t pass the smell test does it?
Davies J. The judge who asserted Glen P. Robbins ‘be treated as a lawyer at all times’ in his 1996 CIBC v Tannis Decision on April 23, 2014 said he would not hear from Glen P. Robbins because of the Hinkson CJ vexatious litigant order. Was this the circling of the legal wagons?
The Complainants believe the events occurring at BC Supreme Court on April 23rd and April 24th, 2014 at docket H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins constitutes the crystallization of a conspired Court/Law Society of BC/BC Attorney General financial fraud against Ita Robbins.
On Court Transcript of Bakonyi/Cambridge’s ‘first court fraud’ before Davies J. on April 23, 2014 (H130330), Davies J. asserts his position that he ‘would not have heard from GPR’ ‘anyhow’ on April 23, 2014 solely on the basis of the Hinkson CJ order made *April 10, 2014, three full days after the Stay of Execution order of Kloegman J. to Ita Robbins great benefit and favour April 7, 2014, 3 clear days earlier.
Smith J.’s behaviour on April 24, 2014 adds even more suspicion. He provides Bakonyi/Cambridge with a vacant possession order, necessary to take Ita Robbins property, inside the courtroom proper, rather than the normal and required process (of oversight), involving the tape dicta and court clerk notes being affixed to legal draft order and submitting it through Civil Filings for Smith J. to later review and sign. He orders that Cambridge Mortgage can take the home on April 25, 2014 the next day and during the Stay of Execution period. (GPR says - ‘I wouldn’t want to be in Nathan Smith shoes’).
A good and competent judge would have realized the Application of April 7, 2014 was irregular and asked for court clerk notes and to listen to the order of Kloegman J. on tape clearly enunciated the Stay of Execution Order.
‘Due some due diligence you lazy bastards’ say Glen P. Robbins. This is precisely what Barry Davies had done in 1996 to catch Peter Lee in the lie. Supreme Court of Canada Judge Brown (Harper, Stephen) worked at the firm originally - what does he think of lies and cheaters in the legal industry?
Hinkson CJ’s Abuse of Office with Intention to aid in the commission of a fraud under *S111171 H130330, is conclusively linked in causation, to interfering with Glen P. Robbins not being permitted a proper hearing of his Application to be added as a party H130030.
Once Glen Robbins is added as Party - and has status to be heard -then the corruption party over Ita Robbins is over for the State.
Some Judges of the BC Supreme Court some more direct than others conspire to Intentionally create a bar to access to justice for Glen and Ita Robbins.
Davies J. stitches the fraud of *(S111171) by Kleisinger/Hinkson into the fraud of the Order Made After Application (H130330) during the period of Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J.(H130330). (A lovely connecting of the dots of the fraud).
Both Davies J. and Smith J. are within their constitutional authority to reverse their orders based on the information of these Complaints, lest they be accused as well of being party to the fraud against Ita Robbins.
Davies J. and Smith J. do not dismiss either Glen P. Robbins application to be added as a party (H130330), or Ita Robbins appeal of Conduct of Sale order (H130330) on the merits of those cases. Much of their attention is spent on the ill gotten vexatious order of their boss Hinkson CJ (GPR says A con-venient distraction).
Did BC Justices Davies J. & Smith J. discuss the case with anyone they maybe shouldn’t have before April 23, and 23 2014? Did they intentionally permit themselves to be involved in this massive fraud?
So much for Judicial Independence.
Glen P. Robbins appealed Davies J.’s decision of April 23, 2014 to the BC Court of Appeal, also seeking a stay of proceedings order (H130330) from BC Court of Appeal, as he and his wife had sought and obtained from Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014. Bakonyi/Cambridge make applications for dismissal of GPR’s appeal and the matter is heard before Willcock J. of the BC Court of Appeal who dismisses Bakonyi/Cambridge’s Application.
The only 2 Applications Glen P. Robbins is provided to speak, April 7, 2014 and June 2014 -like Marshall Matt Dillon in a gunfight he wins them both hands down.
The appeal of Glen P. Robbins Application to be Added As a Party has not been properly heard, yet has expired owing to time limitations (with all the State interference making it impossible) - -AND should be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada under unique circumstances of the massive fraud on Ita Robbins and her property, and to Glen P. Robbins' right to access a fair and proper hearing of his application to be added as party H130330, which would, if heard by an unbiased judge, have discovered the Order Made After Application fraud on the court registry dated May 31, 2013 H130330 by Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO Bank of Montreal.
The order of Smith J. April 24, 2014 dismissing Ita Robbins appeal of the conduct of sale order occurring during the Stay of Execution Order made April 7, 2014 and valid until April 30, 2014, stitches Smith J. into a contemptuous act, whether or not Smith J. knew he was participating in a court fraud should be discovered through this Complaint. Smith J. made the dismissal order of Ita Robbins Appeal of the Conduct of Sale Order sitting as an appeals judge.
As a consequence, Ita Robbins ought to be entitled to take her appeal of the conduct of sale order of December 9, 2014 directly to the Supreme Court of Canada from this dismissal order from an appeals court as described by the Supreme Court of Canada Rules.
Beyond the massive weight and power of the Stay of Execution Order, a proper hearing of Ita Robbins appeal of the conduct of sale order & Glen P. Robbins Application to be Added As a Party to H130330, needs to be heard from the Supreme Court of Canada.

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