Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins Notice of Intervention to Supreme Court of Canada - Google v Equustek
  Sep 19, 2016

Commentary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - File No. 36602
GOOGLE INC. Appellant
EQUUSTEK SOLUTIONS INC. ROBERT ANGUS & CLARMA ENTERPRISES INC.(Respondents)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWS EDITORS, ASSOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NEWS MEDIA......(ET AL) INTERVENER(S)
EQUUSTEK SOLUTIONS INC. ROBERT ANGUS & CLARMA ENTERPRISES INC.(Respondents)
NOTICE OF MOTION TO A JUDGE OR THE REGISTRAR
TAKE NOTICE that Glen P. Robbins applies to a judge under PART 11 “Particular Motions” for a Motion for Intervention pursuant to Rule(s) 55; 56(a), (b), (c); 57(1), (2)(a), (b); 58; 59(1) (a), (b), (2) and (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada (SOR/2002-156).
THE APPLICANT seeks further orders from this Honourable Court pursuant to Rule 6(1) “Extension or Abridgment” and Rule 7(1) “Adjournment” and Rule 8(1) “Dispensing with Compliance”. (*The Applicant will send fax copies of the filings to parties via legal alternative including Affidavit/Evidence and Arguments in excess of 40 pages without permission of the other party owing to time and cost issues). (**The Applicant has provided the following with all documents except the Notice of Intervention, including the Affidavit/Evidence, Authorities and Arguments 'informally' in May 2016: (1) Canadian Judicial Council; (2) Supreme Court of Canada; (3) Royal Canadian Mounted Police (4) Department of Justice Canada.
THE APPLICANT seeks a 'self determined' recusal of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin in this proceeding for the following reasons: (a) That criminal submissions and affidavit of Glen P. Robbins have been provided to the Federal Minister of Justice and to BC Prosecution Services (BC Attorney General and Justice Ministry) & Canadian Judicial Council in relation to BC Supreme Court matters (H130330) & (S111171). H130330 involves the participation of Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon & S111171 involves BC Chief Justice Chris Hinkson and Law Society of British Columbia compliance office Michael Kleisinger as well as Executive Director Timothy McGee.
(H130330 appeal of extension of time for filing leave to appeal heard at SCC under 35772 {Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc.}), while S111171 appeal of Costs heard at SCC under 35302 {Robbins v Law Society of BC}. These two cases are interrelated by subject matter.
SCC Chief Justice McLachlin is a former BC Supreme Court Justice who was a former professor at University of British Columbia (“UBC”). Justice Lauri Fenlon was also a former professor at UBC. Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson is a former Queens Counsel lawyer with close historical and professional ties to the Law Society of British Columbia having law education at UBC.
There are a series of questioning actions undertaken by Justice Lauri Fenlon in H130330 which assisted Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis and their clients Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc in their aggressive pursuit of abuse the administration of justice, including: (a) Her Honour permitting her constitutional discretion in matters of right of audience to be overridden by provincial law society legislation, (b) her signing An Order Made After Application made in her name in relation to the outcome associated with “(a)”, where no application was ever made to the court, and (c) where she gave no order; (d) making order for vacant possession December 4, 2014 under H130330 when an order for vacant possession had already been made April 24, 2014, and where the April 24, 2014 order was obtained while a stay of execution was in place, where both the April 24, 2014 vacant possession order including writ of possession was 'right under her nose' and where she ordered the sale of property for half of its legal value.
I have accused Justice Fenlon of acting with malice against myself, my wife and another and helping lawyers Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis steal our property. The facts are irrefutable.
The Applicant seeks further order for adjournment of the hearing of the Appeal in Google v Equustek pursuant to Rule 7(1) & (2) of the Supreme Court of Canada Rules on the basis that the Federal Ministry of Justice, BC Prosecution Services, RCMP & Canadian Judicial Council were served with criminal complaint against BC Lawyers Ronald Bakonyi (legal counsel for Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc.), Robert Ellis (legal counsel (legal insider pursuant to Bank Act of Canada) for BMO Bank of Montreal), Michael Kleisinger, (compliance officer with Law Society of British Columbia), Lauri Anne Fenlon (BC lower court superior justice), & Christopher Hinkson, (BC lower court chief justice) were served with clear and unequivocal proof of breaches of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The criminal submissions and evidence are provided herein under bound document as part of the Notice of Intervention.
These allegations have been posted as pdf online under website www.robbinssceresearch.com under the following links: http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1090.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1098.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1099.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1099.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1101.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1102.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1103.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1104.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1105.html
The unique delivery of positions as required to satisfy the stipulations under the Rules for permission for Intervention is also provided in bound copy to this Honourable Court, and for purposes of enlightenment to other parties is also provided under website www.robbinssceresearch.com and provided under the following links entitled “Glen P. Robbins (ordinary citizen) gives Reasons in Google v Equustek”: http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1114.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1115.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1116.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1110.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1117.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1118.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1119.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1120.html; http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll 1121.html;
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the motion for intervention shall be made on the following grounds:
(1) The Applicant was adversely affected, and further asserts that his wife, his children and family were also adversely affected by abuse of constitutional office, and abuse of constitutional power, by the lower court justice in H130330, Lauri Anne Fenlon, also the lower court justice in Google v Equustek;
(2) Many issues and subject matter in Google v Equustek are similar to the Applicant's experience in H130330, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc. v. Ita Robbins (and another).
(3) The applicant was adversely affected by abuse of constitutional office, abuse of constitutional power, by the lower court chief justice in the Province of British Columbia, Christopher Hinkson involving lower court case S111171 which had direct impact and influence on H130330 (C.J. Hinkson is the administrative justice appointing Lauri Fenlon J. to hear the Google v Equustek case).
(4) If, as is stipulated in the Affidavit submissions, the lower court justice has participated in any way in the commission of or aided and abetted breaches in the Criminal Code of Canada, she did so prior to and during the hearing of Google v Equustek, which action and conduct resulted in these criminal breach(s) occurring in Supreme Court of Canada (SCC”), case file No.: 35772, Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (“CMIC”), through filings of replies and other documents by “CMIC” accepted by the registry at “SCC” from which judicial decisions were made on the clear basis of fraud.
(5) The subject matter common to the Applicant and the cited cases involving him and Google v Equustek include: (a) issues relating to legal principle of Comity; (b) issues relating to freedom of expression; (c) issues relating to BC Civil procedure, court processes, due process and party status.
DATED at Burnaby, British Columbia this 2nd day of September, 2016
Applicant for the Motion: Glen P. Robbins (for himself), Address for delivery: xxxx St., Burnaby, BC, V5G 2B4
ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR: Supreme Court of Canada, 301 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OJ1
COPIES TO: (Appellant, Respondents, Interveners), (Notice of Motion only under 40 pages (NOTICE). (*Initial Service of Notice of Intervention will be to: the Appellant and Respondent(s), whose addresses for service are provided in filings).
NOTICE TO THE (Appellant), (Interveners) Respondent to the Motion: A respondent to the Motion may file and serve and file a response to this motion within 10 days after service of this Motion. If no response is filed within that time, the motion will be submitted for consideration to a judge or Registrar, as the case may be.
If the motion is served and filed with the application for leave to appeal, then the Respondent may serve and file the response to the motion with the response to the application for leave to appeal.
(In the case of an originating motion, include a copy of the judgment and reasons for judgment of the court appealed from and a copy of the certificate in Form 23A and, if applicable, a copy of the certificate in Form 23B).

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017