Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen Robbins demands Chief Justice 4 BC Robert Bauman (former Bull Housser & Tupper now Norton Rose Fulbright) to deal with fraud under BC H130330, S111171, Cambridge, BMO, Fenlon, HInkson LSBC
  Sep 23, 2016

Commentary
Glen P. Robbins
BC Court of Appeal (Bobby Bauman Judge)
Supreme Court of Canada
Canadian Judicial Council
Department of Justice Canada
BC Attorney General
Attention: Chief Justice for British Columbia Robert Bauman/c/o Attorney and to BC Court of Appeal Registrar
Re BC Court of Appeal No.: CAO41804 from BCSC S111171 & with consideration of H130330
Please find enclosed the Leave to Application made in your court registry May 12, 2014. This document was served on the Law Society of BC. I provide a copy of that document which was derived from FOI request from WCAT matters which remain outstanding there.
I also provide a Notice of Intervention to the Supreme Court of Canada in Google v Equustek. Within that application are links to 'pdf' publication of criminal submissions I have provided to authorities involving 3 members of the Law Society of British Columbia and involve two justices who are at BC Court of Appeal or is an equivalent (Chief Justice). These two persons are Lauri Fenlon and Chris Hinkson.
I interchangeably used their names with their positions of authority and in civil context for purposes of notification of pending litigation.
I provide affidavit and exhibits in the criminal submissions as well as my own Reasons of an Ordinary Person Armed with the Facts. Please note my assertions pertaining to the dates on which Fenlon J. made her decision and the timing of her being made a justice at the BC Court of Appeal, which I perceive to be a conflict.
'Maria' from BC Court of Appeal court registry indicates that this appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution November 2015 pursuant to section 25 of the Court of Appeal Act.
I wish to seek additional time to have this matter heard. Obviously, the lack the confidence I have in your court and the ability of the court to be impartial given the clear evidence provided and to the participation of certain justices in it, as this pertains to S111171 (the appeal) and to lower court BCSC H130330 involving Justice Fenlon.
For speedy background. On April 7, 2014 Kloegman J. (now retired) made order for stay of execution under H130330. It is in the clerk's notes at desk 205 and featured prominently in documents relating to the accusations of breach of Criminal Code and the Notice of Intervention submissions filed with Supreme Court of Canada this week.
I did not become aware of these court clerk notes until December 2015. Kloegman J. gave opposing counsel Ronald Bakonyi the responsibility of drafting the order and also ordered that Ita Robbins and Frana Matich not be permitted to review the contently of the order....foolishly it seems now.
Certainly, the opportunity arises to correct the blunders that have occurred from point of this new information.
On April 7, 2014 during the hearing before Kloegman J. I was aware that the court clerk had telephoned Trial Division seeking a more than 2 hour hearing and was told that none would be given until the first of the next month.
You ought to be aware of this fact.
Trial Division in Vancouver demands dates are taken the first of the month only.
On April 24, 2014 Ronald Bakonyi ex parte went to a Justice and obtained a vacant possession order. Kloegman J's stay of execution was good until April 30, 2014, six days later.
The vacant possession order granted April 24, 2014 is unlawful and was obtained by Mr. Bakonyi lying to Mister Justice Smith (and to another).
One of the affidavits filed contained my testimony that I engaged a PhD Linquist to interpret the court clerk's notes on the stay of execution. This linguist confirmed the obvious, the intention was a stay of execution until April 30, 2014 is without doubt.
Because of the criminal actions of Mr. Bakonyi, the ex parte vacant possession order was converted to a writ of possession and our family home was taken without notice. RCMP attended without justification and bailiffs ordered my detention through the threat of the RCMP who did not dispute my claim.
My affidavit establishes that on this date, July 14, 2014 I telephoned my brother in law Craig Dalziel looking for my nephew Ryan Dalziel, a partner with your old law firm Bull Housser. Craig, as I understand it, telephoned Ryan, and called me back to say the advice he received was that a vacant possession was valid unless a stay of execution was in place. I believe this to be legal advice obtained.
Included in my accusations made against the LSBC trilogy of lawyers and both BC Supreme Court Justices in conjunction with the aforementioned malfeasance are further accusations that Ronald Bakonyi (Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp) and Robert Ellis (BMO Bank of Montreal) filed an Order Made After Application under H130330 on May 31, 2013 where application was never made and no order was given (by lower court justice Fenlon).
Months later, Mr. Bakonyi went to Vancouver court registry to obtain a signature from Justice Fenlon on this May 31, 2013 (phony) order which she then signed knowing she NEVER made it in the first place. Later, in December 2015 Lauri Fenlon provided an order for sale of the property and a 2nd vacant possession order (6 months after the other had been put to use in breach of the stay of execution).
S111171 Chris Hinkson comes to the rescue of Bakonyi, Ellis & Kleisinger:
My allegations against both Justices Fenlon and Hinkson assert that Chris Hinkson used his office as Chief Justice to hear matter under BCSC S111171 on the basis of application for vexatious litigant (when it is only a procedure). A rule 8 application was used when a petition should have been commenced.
This action by Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC, I believe was undertaken to cover up the actions of Mr. Bakonyi and Ellis, and Lauri Fenlon under BCSC H130330. Mr. Kleisinger lied and breach his oath as a lawyer about the implications of LPA section 15 (which has been changed by Royal Assent of BC Leg without notice to me) from order of BC Constitutionally appointed Justice Christopher Grauer, and its implications for matters pertaining to right of audience.
A type of made in BC parliamentary supremacy (see Google v Equustek).
Mr. Kleisinger had written to me stipulating that if I attended to court with Enduring Powers of Attorney donated to me by my wife and registered at Land Title Office by lawyer Ross Davidson, to speak on behalf of my wife, he would seek a contempt citation on the basis of the Grauer J. order.
A real 'con job' to be sure.
The Rule 8 Application was made under S111171, a matter originally involving Justice Christopher Grauer pursuant to rule 15(5) of the LPA (different subject matter than that required for VP (VL) application under the BC Supreme Court Act). If you look at the docket for S.C.C. No.: 35302, Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC you can plainly see that this matter was concluded long after the Hinkson J. order of April 14, 2014.
The Trial date obtained by the Law Society of BC through Chris Hinkson (whose history with LSBC (and other) I have well researched) was a few weeks after first notice of the rule 8 application. (A rush to judgment).
In that hearing no evidence was adduced to support the accusation, I met none of the criteria under SCC or any other case law.
In addition, Chris Hinkson refused to hear my response to application because I had included the Office of the Chief Justice as respondent. Hinkson CJ confused the office with him personally. Although I have confirmed through Federal Court of actions that I can sue a constitutionally appointed at Federal Court for unlimited amounts and in their personal name, it was also made clear to me that an office is not a person, but rather a person holds the office, and only temporarily.
I am intending to file leave to the Supreme Court of Canada (first) on this matter of the 'dismissed' appeal to your court.
However, on the basis that the stay of execution is probably the most emphatic of all legal principles (the same language that stops an execution of a person) did not become evident until December 2015, a month following the dismissal of this appeal as well as Mr. Bakonyi's clear malfeasance on this file, it is important to permit you as the Chief Justice for British Columbia to use your authority to correct this blatant abuse of the administration of justice, and for parties behind this malfeasance to come up with a plan for reversing this and for compensation.
It is important that the appeal of Madame Justice Saunders order from leave application (extension of time BCSC H130330) to S.C.C. (35302) be investigated on the basis that Ita and Frana's application for leave included application for stay of execution (dismissed with no costs). Opposing counsel made two filings that neglected to inform the S.C.C. (Reply/other) that a stay of execution order had been made already.
There is no case law supporting any lawyer moving on a file whilst it is frozen under stay of execution. Every action take under this file subsequent to the stay of execution order of Kloegman J. should be declared a nullity.
My leave application for extension of time and for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the application given my lack of confidence in the BC Superior Courts will include yourself as a respondent.
The foolish order provided by Chris Hinkson should be easily set aside and his judgment removed from Internet links and other as I believe it defames my reputation. I have written to the Prime Minister of Canada to ask that he fire both these justices.
Probably time to take one's head out of the sand and fix the situation wouldn't you think?
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins

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