Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
I & G Robbins file RCMP Complaint to COMM'R, Re: July 14, 2014 BC State sanctioned home invasion (millions $$ lost) (Vol 1 of 2)
  Mar 27, 2021

Commentary
March 21, 2021
Glen & Ita Robbins
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP National Intake Office, P.O. Box 1722, Station B,Ottawa, Ontario, ON K1P OB3 Fax: 1-613-960-6147 Email: complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca
RCMP Complaints Reference Number: R2021-000306
Thank you for your letter of March 1, 2021 received March 7, 2021 relating to their unlawful attendance to our former home located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC mid morning, July 14, 2014, and losses to us as a consequence of this gross malfeasance in the millions of dollars.
Your invitation to file follows our application to the Ministry of Attorney General (BC) for Compensation under the BC Forfeiture Act, a copy of which was provided to your Office, which you duly note in your letter of invitation.
The Complaint submissions are lengthy, but thorough, necessitated by the massive loss caused in large part by the RCMP’s unlawful attendance, including detention of our family. These submissions will be posted online, provided by email and including in bound submissions along with other material to the address above.
Our efforts have estimated that a decent investigator can determine the veracity of the facts and law provided in relatively short order. I would mention however, that Glen P. Robbins Intervener submissions provided to the Supreme Court of Canada in Google v Equustek 36602.
These submissions have been read by Brown J. of that Court and contain 437 pages of Martins 13th Edition Criminal Code 'indictment' of the criminal acts undertaken by BC lawyers (Judges) and the RCMP. Most of the documents evidencing this despicable fraud by the State under affidavit in the S.C.C. registry. The Resource Centre at that Court has this document available for you to discover.
Considerations of Time:
Our ‘family’ litigation filed in BC Supreme Court BCSC 149328 (New Westminster courthouse) in 2013, amended to include the RCMP as a Defendant (2014) (and the bailiff Consolidated Bailiff) and in the Federal Court of Canada 2015 relating to this incident (not yet decided on merit) (and sent to S.C.C. for posterity), protects our interests in terms of time limits. Any discretion as to time to file a Complaint is likely a nullity in context of this reality.
Complaints have been provided to the RCMP Commissioner in the past including through this ‘gmail’ medium. RCMP Media contact has been kept abreast of the information, and has acknowledged the same. These submissions represent the continued escalation of legal filings in any effort to avoid filing Mandamus Order and other at Supreme Court of Canada seeking orders forcing the BC Provincial Government to take action including but not limited to: The filing of Stay of Execution order of Madame Justice Kloegman April 7, 2014 in Cambridge v IRobbins (H130330), Supreme Court of Canada (35772), and rescinding of orders obtained by Cambridge attorney *Ron Bakonyi, on an ex parte basis April 23rd, and 24th, 2014 during the Stay period and rescinding of Order Made After Application dated March 28, 2013, which Application never occurred.
Further orders may also be sought against BC Chief Justice Chris Hinkson and former Law Society Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger for their joint 'premeditated involvement in facilitating the interference in the course of justice under BCSC S111171 Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins (Supreme Court of Canada 35302) GPR v Law Society of BC. This intentional fraud was put into play (we assert as fact) to facilitate the cover up of the mortgage and BC Land Title fraud (New Westminster) involving Ita Robbins H130330.
I provide the material submitted and accepted by the Cullen Commission administration, provided to Legal under ROBBINS Sce Research (1998). This material was also provide to the Attorney General of BC relating to a demand for compensation under BC Civil Forfeiture.
“Ita Robbins et al file $9 Million Victim Compensation - BC Civil Forfeiture (Vol 1) Subject: Honeysuckle Lane”.
“Bad guys: Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan Financial, BMO Bank, Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Law Society BC, BC Attorney General, RCMP.”
The balance of replications of those submissions can be seen under this Vol 1 (BC Polls). This complaint will be disseminated in the Public Interest (as other filings have been done) at www.robbins sce research.com. The length of the Complaint must be lengthy to ensure comprehensiveness. Our experience suggests the systems involved (justice and police) advertise many things, but fail to deliver. In fact the incident described, bears out abject lawlessness on the part of the RCMP. It isn’t the first time.
(The final delivery of our Complaint will be made by both facsimile and Registered Mail to the Complaints Commissioner (which does not possess an email)- requested prior to the 2nd week of April 2021. As a courtesy, I am providing this as a heads up, in order to provide the Institutional Actors to get their ducks in a row, hopefully to resolve this mess made by bent lawyers, (lawyers as judges) and specific to this Complaint, to RCMP Officers who played a prominent role in creating this unlawful mess).
A Complaint draft is included to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki in order to ensure protection of any Bad Faith complaints featured under the Civil action.
I would ask the Reader on the ‘ROBBINS JURY’ to note that RCMP police officers are members operating under a CODE OF CONDUCT, while provincial or municipal police officers, most specifically under British Columbia’s Police Act do not.
To the Complaints Commissioner and any others familiar with most relevant Statutes and case law pertaining to so called ‘Judges law’, I provide a general list of source material, which I expect will compel those persons just described, when this material is prima facie considered against the events, now submitted most recently to the *Cullen Commission and to the BC Attorney General seeking compensation under the Civil Forfeiture Act, to understand that this Complaint is air tight.
(*I also note that in recent Cullen Commission hearings of late, the Land Title BC Registrar admitted to being aware of document filings including interest rate. I was told, and have documented that the Registrar told me they do not. This information is relevant to this Complaint and to the underlying BC Supreme Court case Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins and another (H130330). In this case, the original sub prime mortgage contract on BC Gov letterhead reflected a 98.7% rate of Interest. This contract occurred between Ita Robbins et al and Peet & Cowan Financial Services (a sister company of Cambridge Mortgage owned by the same two persons), who then laundered this loan with criminal rate at BC Land Title in the Federal Box for disclosure of Annual Percentage Rate (“A.P.R.”) at both 8.9%/9.2%. Although these two percentages are basis points apart, it is impossible to have a mortgage complying with Canada’s Interest Act bearing two entirely different percentages). It is difficult to identify where any state actor has NOT lied or cheated.
Various other court document filing frauds were undertaken thereafter, filing Orders to Applications which never occurred, obtaining orders including vacant possession orders during a Judicial Stay of Execution (April 23, 24, 2014) and filing documents at Supreme Court of Canada (Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Case File 35772).
The RCMP aided and abetted this fraud. I assert malice aforethought from their Supervisor and the Officers who attended.
Herein are the main sources of Statute, case law and other references that illuminate the RCMP screwing up on a major scale in their attendance to our family property July 14, 2014 and assisting BC Law Society lawyers (judges) with their massive fraud on the courts and on Ita Robbins and her mother (owners) and myself.
Royal Canadian Police Act R.S.C., 1985, C. R-10; Police Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 367; RCMP Regulations Section 2 Assessment of Force, Schedule Code of Conduct (Section 18 and subsection 23 (1);Supreme Court of Canada, McCulloch v Murray {1942} S.C.R. 141 (“wilful negligence”); Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (“Sentencing”); Trespass Act (RSBC 2018) Chapter 3; R v Dorash, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“colour of right”); Ontario Court of Appeal (R v Demarco); R v Asante-Mensah, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada; Sheriff Act (BC); Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre; R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 (Charter Rights Section 9); R v Hufsky {1988} 1 SCR 621; R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32; Dedman v The Queen, (1985) 2 SCR (“Waterfield test”); Supreme Court of Canada R v Stenning (1970) S.C.R.; Protection of Property Act (Nova Scotia).
I enclose the following ROBBINS Poll from October 2, 2018 conducted in the City of Surrey. (My) Question #6 asks: “Surrey currently has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. The RCMP is legally answerable to the Federal Government and Provincial Government (under contract). A Surrey City Police Force would be answerable to the mayor and city council as it is in the City of Vancouver. Which (response choice) do you prefer?” Response: Continue with RCMP (34%), New Surrey City Police Force (46%)....
When the Surrey City Election was held just less than 3 weeks later (Zussman and Ferreras) of Global TV (CKNW) reported the Election result (October 21, 2018) that Surrey-Mayor Doug McCallum - whose City Election campaign supported a new Surrey City Police Force obtained -41.43%- of the popular vote, consistent with the polling outcomes I produced relating to Surrey voters opinion of the new Force relative to the RCMP.
In the period following that Election, there appeared (to me at least) much bias in the Media about the change in police forces in Surrey. Consequently, I published the following Poll-”Profile City of Surrey BC, wherein I/We asked: Do you support or oppose the new Surrey City Police Force? Response: Support (47.38%), Oppose (24.71%).
A few ancillary items to consider for context. 1. Surrey, BC is the bellwether of provincial politics; 2. The RCMP detachment in Surrey was the Jewel in the Crown of the RCMP in Western Canada with hundreds of millions expended for new Office space and other.
Surrey BC also plays prominently in the operation of BC Crown Corporation ICBC. The RCMP has been working closely (I would say entangled) with ICBC in Surrey and elsewhere in the province. Do these close working relationships with BC Institutions in any way compromise the RCMP under the Conflict Rules, sufficient to induce the type the conspicuous flaunting of the law made clearly evident through this Complaint?
I would estimate that, in losing its status as the Police Force in Surrey, BC damaged the RCMP’s brand likely by $100 million or more. Though it is unrelated to this subject matter, I include this Poll from the United States conducted February 2004 and re released January 02, 2011 involving Mel Gibson’s film “Passion of the Christ” as an indicator of my ‘expertise’ at predicting outcomes involving goodwill and in this instance movie receipts.
Question #6: “Is it your intention to see Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ”? Response: Very Likely (21%), Likely (23%). Under my commentary I asked: ‘Will receipts hit $500 Million to One Billion as (American) respondents have suggested?’ At this time, predominantly Jewish Media ownership predicted (hoped for ad nauseum) that the film would be a flop.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act R.S.C., 1985, C. R-10.
Interpretation (Definitions) “Code of Conduct” (for RCMP Police Officers).
“The Governor General (Executive Parliament) may make regulations to be known as the Code of Conduct, governing the conduct of members” (police officers) - “Minister means the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.”
Suspension:
12. Every member who has controverted, is found controverting or is suspected of contravening any provision of the Code of Conduct or an Act of Parliament, or of the legislature of a province, may be suspended from duty by the Commissioner.
Headquarters
13. “The headquarters of the Force and the office of the Commissioner shall be at Ottawa.
Contravention of Code of Conduct
39(1) “Every member who is alleged to have contravened a provision of the Code of Conduct may be dealt with under this Act either in or outside Canada,”
PART IV Conduct “Purposes”
36.2 “The purposes of this Part are (a) to establish the responsibilities of members, (b) to provide for the establishment of a Code of Conduct that emphasizes the importance of maintaining the public trust and reinforces the high standard of conducted expected of members; (c) to ensure that members are responsible and accountable for the promotion and maintenance of good conduct in the Force; (d) to establish a framework for dealing with the contravention of provisions of the Code of Conduct, in a fair and consistent manner, at the most appropriate level of the Force; and (e) to provide, in relation to the contravention of any provision of the Code of Conduct, for the imposition of conduct measures that are proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the contravention and, where appropriate, that are educational and remedial rather than punitive.”
Responsibilities
37. “It is the responsibility of every member (a) to respect the rights of all persons; (b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice; (c) to perform the member’s duties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law and without abusing the member’s authority.”
Duties
18. “It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commission, (a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province...and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and other who may be lawfully taken into custody, (b) to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto, that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any province, be lawfully executed and performed by police officers; (d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council of the Commission.”
Arrangements with Provinces
20 (1) “The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an arrangement with the governor of any province for the use or employment of the Force, or any portion thereof, in aiding the administration of justice in the province and in carrying into effect the laws in force therein.”
Arrangements with Municipalities
20 (2) “The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and the lieutenant governor in council of any province, enter into an arrangement with any municipality in the province for the use or employment of the Force, or any portion thereof, in aiding the administration of justice in the province and in carrying into effect the laws in force therein.” Payment for Services
(3) “The Minister may with the approval of the Treasury Board, in any arrangement made under subsection (1) or (2), agree on and determine the amount of money to be paid by the province or municipality for the services of the Force.”
37. “It is the responsibility of every member (a) to respect the rights of all persons; (b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice; (c) to perform the member’s duties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law…(d) to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interests; (e) to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue; (f) to be incorruptible, never accepting or seeking privilege in the performance of the member’s duties or otherwise placing the member under any obligation that may prejudice the proper performance of the member’s duties; (g) to act al all time in a cautious, respectful and honourable manner; and (h) to maintain the honour of the Force and its principles and purposes.”
Investigation
40 (1) “If it appears to a conduct authority in respect of a member that the member has contravened a provision of the Code of Conduct, the conduct authority shall make or cause to (be) made any investigation that the conduct authority considers necessary to enable the conduct authority to determine whether the member has contravened or is contravening the provision.” (2) “In any investigation under subsection (1), no member shall be excused from answering any question relating to the matter being investigated when required to do so by the person conducting the investigation on the grounds that the answer to the question may tend to criminate the member or subject the member to any criminal, civil or administrative action or proceedings.”
Authority to issue warrant
40.2 (1) “On an ex parte application that has been approved by an office designated by the Commissioner for the purposes of this section, a justice may issue a warrant if the justice is satisfied by information...that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is any receptacle or place not under the control of the Force anything that will afford evidence with respect to the contravention of a provision of the Code of Conduct.”
Regulation and Rules
Section 21 (1) (a), (b), (b.1), (b.2), (b.3), (b.4), (c) ; 21 (2) (a) - (m)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations Schedule (Section 18 and subsection 23 (1)) Code of Conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (lol)
Statement of Objectives
“Maintaining the confidence of Canadians in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is essential.” “Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are responsible for the promotion and maintenance of good conduct in the Force.” “This Code of Conduct sets out responsibilities, consistent with section 37 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, that reinforce the high standard of conduct expected of members of the Force.” 1.1 “This Code applies to every member of the Force and establishes responsibilities and the standard of conduct for members, on and off duty, in and outside Canada.”
RESPECT AND COURTESY
2.1 “Members treat every person with respect and courtesy and do not engage in discrimination or harassment.” (lol)
3 RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
3.1 “Members respect the law and the rights of all individuals.” 3.2 “Members act with integrity, fairness and impartiality, and do not compromise or abuse their authority, power or position.” (lol)
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
4.2 “Members are diligent in the performance of their duties and the carrying out of their responsibilities, including taking appropriate action to aid any person who is exposed to potential, imminent or actual damage.” (lol) 4.4 “Members properly account for, and do not alter, conceal or destroy, without lawful excuse, any property, money or documents coming into their possession in their performance of their duties.”
5 USE OF FORCE
5.1 “Members use only as much force as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
7. DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT
7.1 “Members behave in a manner that is not likely to discredit the Force.” (lol)
8. REPORTING
8.1 “Members provide complete, accurate and timely accounts pertaining to carrying out of their responsibilities, the performance of their duties, the conduct of the investigation, the actions of other employees and the operation and administration of the Force.” 8.3 “Members, unless exempted by the Commission, take appropriate action if the conduct of another member contravenes this Code and...report the contravention as soon as feasible.”
Part 3 Code of Conduct
18 “All members must conduct themselves in accordance with the Code of Conduct set out in the schedule.”
Police Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 367 (current to March 17, 2021).
Police forces in British Columbia
1.1 “The following are police forces in British Columbia: (a) the provincial police force, (b) a municipal police department; (c) if prescribed by the minister as a police force, a designated policing unit; (d) the independent investigation office.”
Part 2 - The Minister
2. “The minister must ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is maintained throughout British Columbia.”
Specialized service agreement
4.02 (1) “In this section, “proposed service provider” means a government, government agent, municipality,..or person referred to subsection (2) which the ministered has entered into or made a specialized service agent.” 4.02 (3) “A specialized service agent must specify the following: (a) the services to be provided by the proposed service provider, which services may include; (i) criminal investigation services; (ii) traffic enforcement services; (iii) support services for policing and law enforcement, including (A) police committee services, and forensic services; 3 (b) if applicable, the body that is to deliver the services on behalf of the proposed service provider, which body may include any of the following: (i) if the proposed service provider is the government of Canada, a ministry, branch or agency of the provinces including a police service.. (GPR: LoL - no provisions for aiding and abetting Sheriffs/Bailiffs & Shylock lawyers in home invasions)
Duty of municipalities to use and pay for specialized services
4.03 (1) “A municipality with a population of more than 5,000 persons (GPR: City of Coquitlam) that is within the specialized service area of a specialized service provider must do both of the following: (a) use the specialized services provided by the specialized service provider; (b) pay all costs that, in accordance with a regulator…, are allocated to the municipality by the specialized service provider.”
Liability protection
4.05 (1) “In this section, “protected persons” means (a) a specialized service provider that provides specialized support services..” (2) “No action lies and no proceedings may be brought against a protected person, and a protected person is not liable for any loss or damages suffered by any person, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by a protected person in relation to the provision of specialized support services by a protected person.” (3) “As an exception, the immunity from legal action otherwise provided to a protected person by subsection (2) does not apply if the protected person has been guilty of malice or wilful misconduct in relation to the subject matter of the action.” (GPR: Legal definition of “malice”: “Malice in law refers to that state of mind which is reckless of law.. in a person’s conduct toward that citizen”). (GPR: “Wilful Misconduct”: means ANY act or failure to act by a person that was intended to cause or was in reckless disregard or wanton indifference to, the harmful consequences to the safety or property of another person). (“Willful misconduct...means misconduct to which the will is party as contradistinguished from accident...a person willfully misconducts himself, who knows and appreciates that it is wrong conduct on his part in the existing circumstances).
Ministerial liability
11 (1) “The minister, on behalf of government (Mike Farnworth currently), is jointly and severally liable for torts committed by (a) provincial constables, auxiliary constables, special provincial constables, IIO investigators and enforcement officers appointed on behalf of a ministry, if the tort committed is in performance of their duties.” (2) “Even though a person referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is not found liable for a tort...by the person in the performance of his or her duties, the minister may pay an amount the minister considers necessary to (a) settle a claim against the person for a tort allegedly committed by the performance of his or her duties”, (3) “The Minister of Finance must pay out of the consolidated revenue fund, on the requisition of the minister, money required for the purposes of subsection (2).”
Liability for torts
20 (1) “Subject to an agreement under section 18 (1) or 23 (2) (a) a municipality is jointly and severally liable for a tort that is committed by any of its municipal constables, special municipal constables, designated constables, enforcement officers...if the tort is committed in the performance of that person’s duties, and (b) a regional district, government corporation or other prescribed entity is jointly and severally liable for a tort that is committed by any of its designated constables or enforcement officers, if the tort is committed in the performance of that person’s duties.” (GPR: “A tort consists of wrongful acts or injury that lead to physical, emotional, or financial damage to a person in which another person could be held legally responsible). {“Wrongful” {an adjective} means unfair, unjust or not legal).
The Police Board consists of the mayor, who acts as chair, one person appointed by the municipal council, and seven people appointed by the province. 20 (2) “If it is alleged or established that any municipal constable, specialized municipal constable, designated constable, enforcement officer, bylaw enforcement officer or employee referred to in subsection (1) has committed a tort in the performance of his or her duties the respective board any any members of that board are not liable for the claim.” 20 (3) “Despite subsection (2), if it is alleged or established that any municipal constable, special municipal constable, designated constable, enforcement officer, bylaw enforcement officer or employee referred to in subsection (1) has committed a tort in the performance of his or her duties, the respective municipality, regional district, government corporation or other prescribed entity on behalf of which that person is employed may, in the discretion of the following, pay an amount that it considers necessary to settle the claim or a judgment against that person and may reimburse him or her for reasonable costs incurred in opposing the claim (a) in the case of a municipality, the council of municipality; (b) in the case of a regional district, the board of the regional district; (c) in the case of government corporation of other prescribed entity, that entity itself.
Personal liability
21 (1) “In this section “police officer” means either of the following: (a) a person holding an appointment as a constable under this Act, (b) an IIO investigation”. 21 (2) “No action for damages lies against a police officer or any other person appointed under this Act for anything said or done or omitted to be said or done by him or her in the performance or intended performance of his or her duty or in the exercise of is or her power from any alleged neglect or default…” 21 (3) “Subsection (2) does not provide a defence if (a) the police officer or other person appointed under this Act has, in relation to the conduct that is the subject matter of action, been guilty of dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct.” 21 (4) “Subsection (2) does not absolve any of the following, if they would have been liable had this section been in force, from vicarious liability arising out of a tort committed by the police officer or other person referred to in that subsection: (a) a municipality, in the case of a tort committed by any of its municipal constables..(b) a regional district…(c) the minister, in a case to which section 11 applies.”

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2021