Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 13 -I Robbins 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) Wagner, Abella, Rot
  Jul 05, 2020

Commentary
continued from No.: 12
The Devil is in the Details (“D” Day) and they are outlined here, with documents safely filed in the courts to affirm 100% everything that stated here, notwithstanding those people who received copies of the documents asserted here and or otherwise available in about 5 minutes onlone.
The court docket following the May 9, 2013 hearing stipulates that no one attended on behalf of the respondents Ita Robbins and Frana Matich based on the fact that Glen P. Robbins was not permitted to speak by virtue of procedural (and not substantive order) of the Court on the basis of the erroneous subsection 15 (5).
As some readers can see from evidence provided, the actual document filed in the court registry representing the hearing summary for foreclosure indicates that no one attended for the respondents, yet the participation by Glen P. Robbins is noted in the document and his participation and influence is conspicuous. I would bet that Christopher Grauer might say quadruple genius!
The Court Transcript tells the tale of Glen P. Robbins involvement nearly 3 hours at Foreclosure Hearing. But to read the court summary you might think that the order was obtained by Default Judgement on the application for foreclosure (order nisi).
An outsider looking into file H130330 would come upon this court summary post foreclosure hearing and not readily understand that the procedural hearing on a matter of Glen P. Robbins right of audience had occurred.
This gap from the reality of the event and the rendition of its filing, coupled with the general malaise of negligence from the court registry policy of smile and file - in contempt of BC Chief Justice Bauman’s 2010 Directive that every document to be filed must be reviewed by the court registry.
The New Westminster Registry’s Manager during this period - in a telephone interview with Glen P. Robbins promised that every document there was reviewed prior to filing.
Two other BC Superior Court registries stipulated that they always reviewed documents prior to accepting them for filing, while another one said they generally did not. Glen P. Robbins noted that the New Westminster registry had a separate location at the Civil filing desk for non represented persons to file documents including at the Supreme Court of BC level.
The reader will have to decide if the massive numbers of screw ups by Civil Filing in these cases at Vancouver courthouse 800 Smithe Street are because of the smile and file protest. Too many filings, not enough staff, not enough Judges etc. argument. If so, then BC Chief Justice Bauman is the cause. He failed to have his 2010 Practice Directive for civil registry to check all documents implemented.
Or did Bakonyi/Cambridge have a little advantage at Civil Desk. Wink and nod, you know..helped the neighbourhood lawyer cheat?
Starting with the Petition itself, no disclosure of triable issues. Then the Notice of Hearing document filed during the response period on its face was not a legal document for acceptance at registry. Independent legal counsel was retained by Ita and Glen Robbins; he offers his professional legal opinion that the Notice of Hearing document is cause for a re hearing. Then the debauched hearing itself before Fenlon J.
No Application occurred for anything to with the issue of Glen P. Robbins and question of right of audience. So Bakonyi had to speak with Ellis and discuss the scheme to file this complete fraud of a document intended to deceive the judge at the next event in the foreclosure process. The conduct of sale hearing following the redemption period (generally 6 months).
Then Bakonyi had to telephone his clients at Cambridge Mortgage, and Robert Ellis had to telephone his clients at BMO. They all had to agree to this illegal scheme. Cambridge and BMO could say they were never spoken to about this document, so could BMO and leave it to Bakonyi and Ellis to hold the bag.
That could leave Cambridge and BMO in the position of settling with Ita & Glen Robbins et al directly - now they know the whole story type thing. The problem with this conjecture is BMO’s obvious greasy behaviour in the first foreclosure that started this process. They could have settled the matter by simply offering a reasonable mortgage amount. They didn’t take the opportunity.
Bakonyi can then say, ‘excuse me, but I didn’t make the criminal loan nor involve myself in the constructive fraud at the Land Title Office (BC) {New Westminster}’. ‘That was another lawyer by the name of Van Loan’.
But Bakonyi is stuck on that Order Made After Application fraud with Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg, on its own, much worse than the Boss Power incident that got BC Liberal friends $40 million - while current Premier Horgan offered little resistance to this outlandish payment to Insiders.
One wonders if Horgan’s actions assisting Boss Power weren’t simply a “quid pro quo” (lol) for the New Democrat buddies of Glen Clark - lawyer “Lawton” involved in a multi million dollar sale of shares from his Executive position in the company selling the shares of a government corporation, an assault on the senses for the blatant tawdriness of the benefit - obviously intentional, and with no response in the offing.
We can see how these lawyers and judges play clever with the confusion about the word application - in that a Petition is a legal application.
Thus, like Fenlon J. before him, Tokarek finds a way to make a final order on conduct of sale under H130330 Cambridge v IRobbins, without having a bona fide reason for doing so (or not doing so), other than the misguided/corrupt order nisi of Fenlon J. and most specifically the completely fraudulent Order Made After Application planned to gain control of another corrupt court order. Order nisi H130330 = corruption, conduct of sale = corruption.
The Vexatious Procedure Application Chris Hinkson CJ presiding S111171:
As the informed Reader knows, Glen P. Robbins alleges that Law Society of BC Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger colluded with former law partner and current BC Chief Justice Hinkson to obstruct justice under S111171 with a view to interference in judicial process 35772 (Ita Robbins et al versus Cambridge Mortgage), impacting directly on H130330 (with immense prejudice/bad faith).
Given that Hinkson CJ and conspiring former law partner Michael Kleisinger acting as sub State Officer at Law Society Unauthorized Practice Officer, illegally employed the original Law Society of BC petition of February 24, 2011 heard by Grauer J.
September 2011 with Reasons for Judgment October 3, 2011 under S111171 that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada 35302 as a basis for starting a new application of entirely different subject matter in a rush to judgment, is sufficient to call into question whether or not Hinkson CJ or Michael Kleisinger should be permitted to practice law further.
Rather than filing a new petition as they should have and obtaining a new file No (take more time than they had to cover up for Bakonyi and Ellis) - crooked Michael Kliesinger engages with his old buddy crooked Chris Hinkson in a series of procedural frauds and organized miscarriage of justice through breach of Rule, Procedures and Processes of the Court occurred.
No regard for the Constitutional rights of either Ita or Glen Robbins.
We know the apparent cause of opening file (S111171) February 2011 by way of Petition involving the Legal Professions Act, ARE sections 15 (1), 15 (4) and 15 (5).
In February 2014 without notice or warning Michael ‘Pearl Harbour’ Kleisinger Compliance Officer with LSBC files a Rule 8 interlocutory application with Trial Scheduling at Vancouver courthouse under file No.: S111171 pursuant to the Supreme Court Act BC and section 18 “Vexatious Proceedings” which stipulates:
“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.”
Glen P. Robbins asserts that because the original Petition before Grauer J. under BCSC S111171 related to the LPA provisions only, this brand new subject matter should be brought by original Petition of the Law Society of BC, because it is new subject matter governed by the Supreme Court Act.
Hinkson CJ did not have legal jurisdiction and authority to hear former law partner and LSBC Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger’s Interlocutory Application as a Petition.
The word “Application” is used to describe both an originating Petition and a Rule 8 interlocutory application. Trickers and secret society members ‘manson mason’ Kleisinger & Hinkson are aware of the confusion between the two definitions of the word application, utilizing this confusion to use their office to disadvantage Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins.
It's diabolical from the outset.
GPR asserts therefore that if Kleisinger and LSBC are adamant that a vexatious procedure status must be sought against him, they should have used the opportunity to seek an adjustment at the Supreme Court of Canada where (S111171) was still alive, or do what was lawful and commence an original petition.
Any application at S.C.C. along these lines would surely have been dismissed.
Why no Appeal of Chris Hinkson's order?
Glen P. Robbins knew the crooked vexatious litigant order manufactured by Chris Hinkson and Michael Kleisinger was dirty. He filed a draft appeal of the order at the BC Court of Appeal along with an explanation that he did not have funds to pay the appeal.
It has been up to both Hinkson and Kleisinger to clean up their own corruption, why is the onus on Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins who finished up the rot for the legal profession. BC needs oversight of lawyers by Glen and Ita Robbins.
When Bakonyi is asked by Fenlon J. at foreclosure hearing under H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins if there is a vexatious litigant order against Glen P. Robbins on Court Transcript he answers ‘there isn’t but the Law Society of BC is thinking of it’.
When asked at the original foreclosure hearing by the Court, where Bakonyi found the Grauer J. order - he says he found it online. Did he speak to the Law Society at all? Was he lying about this too?
If the Law Society of BC was considering a vexatious order against GPR in May 2013 as Bakonyi suggests for Fenlon J. why did they wait nearly a year to GPR into court over it, and never provide any letter or other communication of warning? It appears like the original BMO foreclosure. Deception by legal actors at BC Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street.
Hinkson CJ admits in Transcript to Michael Kleisinger at Hearing that Glen P. Robbins ‘only defends people’. Central to the criteria of a vexatious litigant ‘as the libel goes’, is that the individual keeps suing over the same subject matter. Seems like it's the LSBC with platinum membership at BC Court Services that is vexatious.
In response filings to the Supreme Court of Canada in Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage on the application of court fraudster Bakonyi/Cambridge under SCC 35772, Ita Robbins & Glen P. Robbins also filed a counter vexatious procedure to the court.
(S111171) the original court action before Grauer J, had faced a trial and 3 levels of appeal in BC and Ottawa and at the time of the Law Society vexatious procedure application remained open.
Pursuing an order of Vexatious procedure should have compelled a new Petition. It is important to note that Hinkson CJ himself referred to the Law Society Rule 8 Application as Petition. (GPR says the ignorant bastard knew full well what he was doing).
For the edification of the reader in understanding this gaming of the courts processes undertaken between Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society of BC and Chris Hinkson CJ, it is important to understand that different court filings have different Rules and Forms prescribed to them.
A Petition is a commencement document like a Notice of Claim. Beginning a claim by Petition is done through Form 66 of the BC Civil Rules and specifically Rule 16-1 (2), while a (prosecution, defense) interlocutory application is brought by Part 8 - Rule 8-1 Application and Form 33. It is impossible for any person trained in law or with the filing of documents to confuse these different filings, yet somehow Hinkson CJ and his confederate in the court flim flam find a way to do it.
It should be noted when determining intent (criminality or abuse of office) that the Application of the Law Society of BC - Michael Kleisinger found its way directly to Trial Scheduling through an unusual Assize practice directive. This directive was intended to offer a week of court time for court cases already instituted that had outstanding Rule 8 applications to be heard, with each application of ongoing cases not newly instituted cases getting an hour, a half day or day.
The entire time Hinkson CJ is referring to Kleisinger’s Rule 8 Application as a Petition. The form used by Kleisinger is improper. This makes Glen P. Robbins as much of a victim as Boss Power. The Assize Project likely dreamt up by the fraudsters in the first place provided Kleisinger with the disguise (DNA) (ironic the disguise just keeps on giving eh?) to submit a Form 66 Application directly to Trial Scheduling assigned the organizing of the hearings related to the Assize Project.
However, for the filing to be heard by the Chief Justice as a Petition, Kleisinger would have had no choice but to file the Petition with Chambers. For context, a Rule 8 Application has a 5-8 day turnaround for response, while a Petition Application requires 21.
Glen P. Robbins did not respond to Kleisinger’s sneaky Rule 8 Application (rushing the process) because he was not served, he was out of town, and cheater thief lawyer ‘FISA Kleisinger’ went ex parte to his old law buddy Chris Hinkson now CJ to get an order for a full Trial Petition.
This permitted Rule 8 applications in ongoing cases to be heard. The filing process at Assize was then changed from Civil Filing (Chambers) to Trial Scheduling. It was Hinkson’s idea. This provided Law Society cheater Michael Kleisinger with the opportunity to take his corrupt Rule 8 application disguised in documents (read by Brown J of the SCC) for new subject matter to be filed at Trial Scheduling for one day.
Without the loophole, Kleisinger would never have been able to secure the one day day hearing at Trial Scheduling with a Rule 8 ‘interlocutory’ application. We can see therefore, that Kleisinger for LSBC knew that his only way to a fast ‘drive by’ hearing (drive by shooting for context) with his old law partner Hinkson CJ at Trial Scheduling consciously manipulated the court procedures he had superior access to (by the primae facie evidence) by filing the application under (S111171) as an interlocutory application under the Assize Pilot Project intended for actual interlocutory applications, in the midst of boo hoo lack of judges and court time - apparently deluding Hinkson CJ (like Fenlon J. was deluded) into believing it to be a Petition, when GPR has written in bold print at the top of page 1 of response to application of the court filing inconsistencies.
Hinkson’s ‘brilliant’ response to the notice written across the top of his Application at hearing - screaming miscarriage of justice of Hinkson CJ was to say he didn’t read it. Can you imagine the arrogance (stupidity) dishonesty of this man? Which is it?
The forms in front of him read Rule 8 Application by Law Society of BC and suitable response to application with protest by Glen P. Robbins. Yet, Hinkson runs the hearing as a petition. More phony Fenlon J. plausible deniability?
So much for Chris Hinkson’s public complaints about a shortage of court time and threats of stay of proceedings in other cases. A tinpot despot running the administration of justice in BC we think.
Had Kleisinger filed a Petition as he should have, he would have had to go to Civil Filings Desk file the petition and then serve the Petition upon Glen P. Robbins.
Thereafter he would had to wait for a response to Petition to be filed, up to 21 days (rather than 5 or 8 for a Rule 8 interlocutory application, and then obtain a hearing date from Trial Scheduling for months down the road, (not the best way to form a Kangaroo Court proceeding) at a time agreeable to both parties schedules.
Glen P. Robbins believes that Hinkson CJ, a former law associate in the same firm with LSBC Kleisinger knew full well the method of procedure employed (interlocutory application) short circuited the time period required by the BC Rules for a hearing Date, and appropriate document filing consistent with the two different applications.
Further, in the matter of the Vexatious Procedure application Kleisinger sought a one day Trial but only after he obtained an “urgent order” from Hinkson CJ. Too many circumstances of mistakes made by people alleged to be in control or aware of court rules processes and procedures to be considered a coincidence.
Disbar Kleisinger-Hinkson. (GPR says they belong in jail). They used the courts as their own little legal playground.
Chambers Applications are filed at a different court desk than Trials are. A one day trial cannot occur with a Chambers filing, it must be obtained from Trial Scheduling. As indicated Kleisinger obtained the hearing date for Law Society of BC through a fraud on the court.
He was using alleged precious court time through a conscious abuse of the Rules (law) to meet his objectives of defaming Glen P. Robbins through a vexatious procedure application itself without any merit based on a file where 15 (5) caused costs as described, with outstanding costs an imperative element in deciding a vexatious procedure case;
AND with a further view to run interference for Bakonyi Cambridges fraud on the court obtaining 3 orders including: (1) dismissal of Glen P. Robbins application (unopposed and supported by respondents IRobbins et al) (April 23, 2014), (2) dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale obtained through filing of court orders representing applications which never took place (Bakonyi, Ellis) (April 24, 2014), and (3) vacant possession order (April 24, 2014) during a Stay of Execution Order period from Kloegman J. (April 7, 2014 to April 30, 2014).
Again, for those enablers looking for an ‘escape lane for these legal crooksters’ during the process of service of the Rule 8 Application seeking vexatious procedure order under *S111171 from new Statute - GPR informed both Kleisinger and the Court he wasn’t served, as he was out of town. Service of documents must be made in person. Kleisinger says that the documents were served to GPR address to another adult person. The documents were later found in the bushes at the side of the property.
An originating document must be served in person, an application maybe not.
Kleisinger slithers like his reptilian ‘friend’ into court to see his old law partner, newly minted Chief Justice Chris Hinkson ex parte and receives an order that his ‘application’ will go ahead in 3 weeks time. (Many judges like new Assistant Chief Justice Heather Holmes sit many years as an ordinary judge - she was originally made judge in 2001. Chris Hinkson was made a judge in 2007 by PM Stephen Harper (how much political capital does the Conservative Party now have with GPR? Answer: None). Hinkson leap frogs to BCCA judge 2010, the is made Chief Justice 2013 at or about the time that Glen P. Robbins has informed Michael Kleisinger and the Attorney General of BC that he is seeking Default Judgment from the 2001 case involving BCHRT and the pedophile libel caused by Hinkson and Christy Clark/Stephen Harper appointing new judge Heather McNaughton.
As Chair of the BCHRT during that particular fraud against GPR, McNaughton has refused to take down the pedophile brand. AG Geoff Plant mercifully put Meta Tags around it. In a posting to his political website GPR referred to McNaughton as a “stupid bitch”. This post was brought to Grauer J.’s attention by lacklustre lawyers Lyall and Kleisinger at hearing September 19, 2011,
Newly minted Grauer J. (highway to riches for Ita Robbins et al) wasn’t interested.
GPR is served with this Order of hearing by crooked Kleisinger just more than two weeks prior to the unilaterally determined hearing date established by Hinkson CJ for March 21, 2014 at the same time Bakonyi is also filing an application for vacant possession, later adjourned and attracting the Stay of Execution Order.
Had an originating Petition been filed and served by LSBC as GPR believes ought to have been the case, a hearing date for the one day trial would not have been arranged without consent of GPR until the first week of April 2014 given the policy at Vancouver Supreme Court for acquiring hearing dates from Trial Scheduling. At that time, the BC Supreme Court available dates for a one day trial would have been another two months given the alleged shortage of judges that Hinkson was in the news complaining about frequently.
To make the point, the original Petition of the Law Society of BC under (S111171) was served in late February 2011 with a hearing date of one day occurring nearly 7 months later.
A vexatious litigant status to be bona fide would require a history of bad behaviour by a litigant, Hinkson himself admits GPR has only a history of defending other people. A vexatious litigant would need to be suing the same party or parties over and over again on the same subject matter. The only criteria for vexatious litigant met by Glen P. Robbins was the matter of Costs. If the Grauer J. order for 15 (5) is struck as it must be in the interests of justice, then even the Costs element is not a factor.
BCSC S111171 - S.C.C. 35302 should be declared at Nullity altogether.

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