Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Letter from International pollster Glen P. Robbins to Roger Bilodeau at S.C.C [BC Ombudsperson]. - 35772 Rothstein, Moldaver, Abella defrauded - Ron Bakonyi, Chris Hinkson (CJ), BC Court Services, BCAG Law Society BC collude in filing fraud (II)
  Jan 18, 2017

Commentary
continued from British Columbia 'poll' (I) DATED January 13, 2017
[BMO Bank of Montreal should never have been made a respondent. They had registered an amount of less than $1,000 at land title against IR, FM and GPR. GPR is not on title. The lengths the lawyers and the court itself elected to bar Glen P. Robbins yet easily claims standing for a bank that has no bona fide place in the petition].
Where is the petitioner's notes letter or other legitimate communication establishing that an effort was actually made to include the petition respondents IR & FM in any consultation for hearing date?
The notice of hearing is filed by BC Law Society member Ron Bakonyi who signs the document as “Lawyer for the Petitioner”.
The petition response of Ita Robbins & Frana Matich is filed April 17, 2013. The last date for filing the petition response is April 22, 2013. The notice of hearing document is accepted 7 days prematurely.
The petition response filed by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich (IR & FM) contains 30 pages of opposition to any and all orders. [IR & FM clearly desire a hearing of their triable issues and a defence against the petition for foreclosure].
Opposition to the foreclosure petition includes unequivocal pleadings relating to the original (criminal) agreement made between Peet and Cowan Financial Services (PCFS) and Ita Robbins and Frana Matich on BC Government letterhead, as well as the constructive fraud with the filed mortgage agreement at Land Title and Survey Office New Westminster with PCFS sister company Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation, the petitioner under BCSC H130330. The time designated is well over an hour.
[The mortgage registration of Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation is not enforceable under any stretch of the imagination including that which may be induced by use of LSD].
[On balance of probabilities it would be virtually impossible for the petition respondents IR and FM (or any member of the Law Society of BC they might have chosen to represent them) to argue their “defence” to the petition “commencement” in the time normally provided to a Master who doesn't have jurisdiction to hear contentious matters (“triable issues” exceeding 'de minimus' standard].
Under subsection 8 “Setting application for hearing” it states: “(8) A petitioner wishing to set a petition down for hearing MUST , (a) in the case of a petition to which no response to petition has been (filed &) served under subrule (4) (c), file a notice of hearing in Form 68 at any time before the hearing of the petition, or (b) in the case of a petition for which a response to petition has been filed and served under subrule (4)(c), file a notice of hearing in Form 68, and serve a copy of the filed notice of hearing on each petition respondent, at least 7 days before the date set for the hearing.”
Subsection (8) (a) under the BC Civil Rules therefore turns on what the petitioner must do.
What the petitioner must not have done was to file a notice of hearing prior to the expiration of time for filing the petition response. What Ron Bakonyi and CMIC must not have done is what they in fact did, they filed a notice of hearing on April 15, 2013. CMIC obtained a court hearing date through fraud. BC Court Services willfully participated in allowing this and so it goes they are willful participants on behalf of their union and the Government of British Columbia in that fraud.
In May 2013 BC Court Services functions under the administration of BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman, himself operating under Memorandum of Agreement with signatures representing both other Chief Justices and Deputy Minister of the BC Justice Ministry, the latter representing the authority of BC Court Services, armed with the authority and responsibility to ensure a fair and impartial court services for all British Columbians' including self litigants (whose access to BC Courts) a right provided by section 15 (1) of the LPA.
When the notice of hearing document is sent by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of CMIC via BC Ministry of Justice email transmission as it did on April 15, 2013 the BC Government employee working at BC Court Services had a duty and obligation to check this filing against the existing court docket which on that date would have included a petition and a response from BMO Bank of Montreal. The petition has three respondents in total, the primary respondents are Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, it is their property in Coquitlam, BC which is the main issue of the petition. BMO's participation is unmerited.
BC Court Services failed to check the notice of hearing document and accepted it for filing when it should have been challenged as not admissible for filing. At this juncture both LSBC members, the Ministry of Justice (for the Government of British Columbia), and BC Court Services (the entire cast of the Memorandum of Agreement) have enjoined themselves to a process which ultimately serves the fraudulent taking of property from IR & FM including home valued at $1,500,000.
BC Court Services and Land Title Survey have a similar attitude, let documents be filed, don't police anything. How comforting is this to British Columbians?
The Government of British Columbia describes Land Title and Surveys at this link: www.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/land-use/crown-land/legislation-agreements/land-titles-survey as follows:
“The land title and survey system is a cornerstone of the Province's economy. The combination of the Torrens system of assured land titles and an accurate survey cadastre the basis for all real property ownership in British Columbia.”
A regular ordinary person in Canada armed with the facts would likely consider this “cornerstone of the Province's economy” to be a little more thorough. Surely in light of the massive foreign investment fraud, real estate shadow flipping, Asian investors kiting real estate, unregulated lending and no appropriate supervision over either Land Titles or BC Court Services – some type of policing is necessary. How many Canadians do you believe would agree to lawyers (or anyone else) filing documents as they pleased?
A real effort to ensure due process through proper and fair filing of documents including the presumed effort to cooperate with all parties in obtaining a hearing date must ALSO be seen as a cornerstone of a fair legal process (if process is off the rails early in the process as it is in this case, everything which follows is tainted because fairness has been thrown out the window at the beginning)].
Under the BC Civil Rules for dealings with petitions (Rule 16), subsection (13) stipulates under heading “If the petition respondent's application is to be heard at the hearing as follows: “(13) If a petition respondent intends to set an application for hearing of a petition, the parties must, so far as is possible, prepare and file a joint petition record and agree to a date for the hearing of both applications.”
This informs us that a properly trained BC Court Services employee and supervisors with the BCGEU charged with oversight of these employees would understand the importance of ensuring that documents are filed when and how they ought to be filed, with one party not being given an advantage to access to justice at the court registry, particularly in circumstances as abundantly evidence in H130330 (and elsewhere) where Ron Bakonyi, and his client CMIC take every effort to abuse the processes and gain advantage for their corporate clients to the disadvantage of the self litigants Ita Robbins and Frana Matich.
IR & FM clearly state in documents filed at BC Supreme Court, including in affidavit, sufficient for notice to all parties (including the court) that they never received the notice of hearing document. They were ambushed by Bakonyi and Ellis Roadburg.
The judge at hearing acknowledges the fact that Glen Robbins does not have a notice of hearing document or any other information on behalf if IR & FM at hearing. She asks Bakonyi if he has another copy for the respondents (giving the appearance she intends to permit GPR to speak on behalf of his wife).
An affidavit of service is filed at BC Supreme Court under BCSC H130330 in relation to the notice of hearing document setting out that the document was served pursuant to the BC Civil Rules for ordinary service of documents (Canada Post regular mail).
This forms the basis of complaint against the Law Society of BC and its members featured herein.
If as IR & FM declare that they don't receive this ordinary service of the documents then the first filed court document they saw following of personal service of the petition would be the court index identifying the time hearing date.
For purposes of edifying the reader, ordinary service is considered effected under the BC Civil Rules 7 days after the day the document was mailed beginning with the next day (in this case April 15th or 16th, 2013). This would mean that service of the disputed notice of hearing document occurred on April 22nd, 2013 or April 23rd, 2013 (see Rules and clarification beneath), or after the filing of the petition response and outside the expiration of time for filing a response to petition.
Had the members of the BC Law Society Ronald Bakonyi & Robert Ellis Legal “Insider” with BMO Bank) acted properly, they would have filed the notice of hearing following the date of filing and service of the response to petition (April 17th, 2013) or following the extinguishing of the time for filing the petition response (April 20th, 21st) and included the petition respondents IR & FM's declaration in their petition response declaring that a one day Trial was required. If they could not agree on a date for hearing, they could have offered 3 dates to IR & FM, or made application for the court to provide a date (something that would not have benefited their plans to cover the fraud).
BC Civil Rules Notice of Hearing:
In order to obtain a hearing date from the court registry the petitioner must declare on the Form produced by BC Government for standard filing that: (a) a response to petition has been filed; or (b) the time for filing a response to petition has expired. Neither (a) nor (b) requirements associated with the Notice of Hearing were satisfied, yet the court registry accepting the notice of hearing document for filing. Ron Bakonyi and fellow lawyer Robert Ellis knew that the document was not appropriate for filing.
The Government of British Columbia and the Law Society of BC members are responsible for obtaining a hearing date following a document filing at BC Courthouse where they knew or ought to have known that the documents filed should not have been accepted for filing.
The BC Supreme Court Registry has adopted a practice of not checking documents for filing when it has an obligation to do so, which they proudly declare as 'smile and file'. The current Chief Justice for British Columbia Bobby Bauman – has indicated in Practice Directives that all documents MUST be checked by employees of the Government of British Columbia at Court Registry.
Both the Law Society of British Columbia and the BC Attorney General (as well as BCGEU) receive complaints. The Law Society of British Columbia does not respond to the complaint, neither does the BC Attorney General responsible for the court registry despite the service of same directly to the Deputy Attorney General named in the Memorandum of Agreement.
The Law Society of BC failed to properly deal with the complaint. It failed to deal with this process where evidence was provided of the unconscionable loan agreements, the filing process, the use by two lawyers (three if you include Lauri Fenlon who Glen P. Robbins believes was in on the fraud from the beginning, and who ought to have recused herself given her former employ with LSBC lawyer Elizabeth Lyall in the Robbins/LSBC matter) of a provincial law (LPA) and order of a BC Justice relating to that law (15 (5) in a legal matter, as a basis for A complaint was filed with the BC Ombudsperson Kim Carter, who fails to respond.
Process provided for is followed and an escalation of the complaint is made to the BC Chief Justice Bobby Bauman who also does nothing. Process available has been extinguished without any response from those who claim authority in said processes. At this juncture we aren't aware of orders filed that were never applied for and never given, orders filed without court clerk notes (as required by Bob Bauman), Stay of Execution ignored.....
The Response to Petition of Ita Robbins and Frana Matich is filed at Vancouver Registry BC Supreme Court under file Number VLC-S-H-130330 on April 17, 2013 and served by facsimile on the petitioner.
The Response to Petition notes that: “THIS IS A RESPONSE TO the Petition filed March 20, 2013” It is filed by “Ita Robbins – Frana Matich the “petition respondents”. Under “Part 1: ORDERS CONSENTED TO”, IR & FM indicate “None”. Under “Part 2 ORDERS OPPOSED” IR & FM indicate “All order (sic) opposed.” The Response to Petition of IR & FM is Dated 16/04/2013 and signed by both Ita Robbins & Frana Matich.
Notwithstanding the significant detail of the pleadings (most following case law obtained at Vancouver and New Westminster law library with help of the terrific librarians there) included in the Response to Petition, a Notice to the Courts is provided within this documents which notes that the respondents IR & FM have filed their own petition relating to the property [This allows the court the opportunity to rearrange (where required) hearings of various matters, most of which deal with foreclosure. Most of these are straight forward and not contested. H130330 is not one of these] located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, B.C. (the appropriate courthouse) on April 15, 2013 under Petition 150621. A Notice of Claim under 149328. It is also noted that a one day trial has already been 'booked' at the New Westminster courthouse
The Notice of Claim 149328 is filed at New Westminster BC Supreme Court courthouse February 22, 2013. It is noted that this Notice of Claim is also filed with the Canadian Press.
The May 9th, 2013 (so called) Hearing H130330:
On May 9th, 2013 Glen P. Robbins (GPR) attends to the Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court armed with Powers of Attorney from Ita Robbins & Frana Matich seeking an opportunity to speak on their behalf at the hearing, and to deal with the fact that no notice of hearing was served upon the respondents, and to obtain an adjournment of the matter and have it set over for trial.
[Lawyer Anthony Leoni (Webster Hudco) tells a court that a hearing of the enforceability of the mortgage contract and other triable issues could likely have been conducted by a lawyer for $4,000 inclusive of costs].
GPR speaks to the clerk in Masters Chambers in the usual manner lining up to declare time for hearing and who is in attendance. .
Ron Bakonyi declares he and friend Robert Ellis will require 15 minutes, GPR indicates he is there to have the matter set down for trial and a notice of hearing (trial date) established, along with a change of venue to New Westminster. The court sends the file to another courtroom.
Only Mr. Bakonyi and GPR are in attendance at the courthouse. Both Bakonyi and GPR go another courtroom in the courthouse. Justice Fenlon is arranged by about Noon of May 9, 2013. All three parties wait for Robert Ellis. [Glen P. Robbins believes that Ellis a former political candidate at LSBC is phoning down to Vancouver courthouse to arrange for Fenlon to hear the matter].
At hearing Justice Fenlon appears to permit Glen P. Robbins to speak (GPR believes Fenlon was an insider on the fraud and was acting – though not very well). Thereafter Ron Bakonyi provokes an erroneous preliminary issue as to whether or not GPR may obtain a right of audience to speak on behalf of the respondents Ita Robbins and Frana Matich with the objective of obtaining an adjournment and a trial date of one day.
The transcript evidence of that date reveals that Mr. Bakonyi challenges GPR on the right of audience matter on the basis of an order made by Justice Grauer in relation to an order made October 3, 2011 which provides that GPR is not permitted pursuant to section 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act to commence, defend or prosecute a claim in court.
The transcript evidence clearly reveals that Justice Fenlon accepts the Grauer J. order as evidence of GPR not being able to speak on behalf of his wife, despite having the 14 page double spaced Reasons in her possession, acknowledged on transcript and the availability of recess to read them.
Section 15(5) has nothing whatsoever to do with a right of audience decision which is a matter of discretion of the “constitutionally appointed” justice. A right of audience is determined between the application, in this case, GPR seeking adjournment and trial date on behalf of IR &FM and the presiding justice.
[The transcript of this hearing which has been read by at least 5 Supreme Court of Canada justices at this point. It reveals Justice Fenlon asking about the order of Justice Grauer and its relation to allowing GPR to speak. The respondents (and GPR) have indicated in submissions that they believe Fenlon, a former employee of Elizabeth Lyall of law firm Fasken Martineau (Elizabeth Lyall opposed Glen P. Robbins in previous hearing before Justice Grauer - and didn't do too well). Vancouver Sun justice reporter Ian Mulgrew wrote a quarter page journal in that newspaper {but never phoned Glen Robbins for comment}). Robbins in LSBC v Glen P. Robbins a case published in part in the Vancouver Sun (Ian Mulgrew), was a plant to hear the case, but at a minimum, she ought to have recused herself, particularly given that she denied a right of audience to GPR predicated on an order (Grauer J.) which has nothing to do with determining a right of audience]. [IR and FM file an 80 page dissertation in the history of right of audience to SCC 35772 read by Wagner J].
This aside for the moment, GPR is denied a right of audience and a order nisi is granted on the “substantive matter” of the foreclosure. The petition is the only substantive matter, while the right of audience is considered a procedural or “housekeeping” matter. Costs are provided as level “A” (the minimum).
Order Made After Application filed May 27, 2013 Vancouver Registry H130330.
Notwithstanding contentious matters relating to the filing and service of the notice of hearing document already discussed, the Order Made After Application filed May 27, 2013 provides for the details of the orders sought in the petition and includes this statement: “coming on for hearing at Vancouver on Thursday, May 9, 2013 and on hearing Ronald A. Bakonyi, Counsel for the Petitioner, Robert Ellis counsel for the Bank of Montreal and no one appearing on behalf of the Petition Respondents although duly served.”
This establishes the May 9, 2013 hearing outcome based on the this Order Made After Application as being a standard foreclosure.
This Order Made After Application is signed by both Ronald Bakonyi (Cambridge) and Robert Ellis (BMO Bank of Montreal). Deputy District Registrar Mellani Berg signs “Digitally”.
Order Made After Application filed May 31, 2013 Vancouver Registry H130330 (from May 9th, 2013 hearing Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street)
Mr. Bakonyi and Ellis are not finished with their hand in larceny. On May 31, 2013 they file a 2nd Order Made After Application. This document is a fraud. There is no Application and no Order per se.
In this document “Before Madam Justice Fenlon” it states that “coming on for hearing at Vancouver on Thursday, May 9, 2013 and on hearing Ronald A. Bakonyi, Counsel for the Petitioner, Robert Ellis counsel for the Bank of Montreal, Glen Robbins and no one appearing on behalf of the Petition Respondents although duly served” “THIS COURT ORDERS that:” “(1) Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from making submissions in this matter on behalf of the Respondents, Ita Robbins and Frana Matich.”
On May 9th, 2013, May 27th, 2013 & May 31th, 2013 only one application has been made, the Petition. An application is made either through Petition or through Rule 8 Application (governing interlocutory but not final orders).
It is important to note that under no circumstances may a final Order be obtained through a Rule 8 application. The Petition seeks the final order for foreclosure (order nisi) and this is accounted for through the May 27, 2013 filing to the court.
BC Court Services should not have permitted the May 31, 2013 document for filing. The event described never took place. There are no court clerk notes to support. A Rule 8 Application under “Part 8 – Applications, Rule 8-1” “How to Bring and Respond to Applications”.
How is it possible that an Application can be made producing order when one is not filed? How is it possible that an order could be made where “Glen Robbins has no standing...” when the only application made, the Petition, has already been dealt with under the May 27th, 2013 filing of the Order Made After Application and in that application Glen Robbins is not a party to the action or to the proceeding.
[In BCSC case Google v Equustek (where Glen P. Robbins sought Intervenor status at the Supreme Court of Canada) Google is not a party to the court action. They are included as party by virtue of a Rule 8 application].
How could an order for prohibition pursuant to section 15 (5) be made in relation to “making submissions in this matter on behalf of the Respondents, Ita Robbins and Frana Matich” when a right of audience question is and remains a matter between the person seeking leave to right of audience and the decision maker (justice/judge) only?
There is no statutory methodology from the Province of British Columbia to intervene in the process of who can speak and who cannot in a public court.
*[We will learn in subsequent court filings under this docket that Glen P. Robbins makes a Rule 8 application to be added as party on January 2, 2014].
We point out that under Part 8 Applications – Rule 1 and Definitions “(1) In this rule “application respondent” means a person who files an application response under subrule (9).”
BC Court Services is again negligent in permitting this Order Made After Application dated May 31, 2013 to be filed at Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, B.C. There are no court clerks notes to support it. [The implications of the damage caused by the fraud, corruption and negligence is soon discovered to escalate at the application for Conduct of Sale the 2nd step in the process of foreclosure].
What is more apparent (and supports the evidence of Justice Fenlon's complicity in this fraud with BC Law Society lawyers Bakonyi and Ellis) is that many months later Fenlon herself signs this order that she never made, knowing full well that no application for the order is made.
It should also be noted that minus the orders Bakonyi obtains for CMIC during the Stay of Execution order of April 7-30, 2014 the only Justice hearing applications is Lauri Fenlon (the order nisi and the half price sale).
These facts become even more consequential when we consider case law “Law Society of Upper Canada v Punnett 1997 CanLII 824 (ON)”... where lawyers “have been reprimanded for misleading the court on evidentiary issues. In on case, a lawyer misled the Halton Region in terms of an Order in Council. The lawyer subsequently attempted to rely on what he said was a clerical error by an employee at Halton Region, however the error was based on the lawyer's misrepresentation.”
In R v Wijesinha, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a conviction for obstruction of justice after a lawyer knowingly submitted false declaration to the Law Society of British Columbia.
In the United States, the Chancery Court in Delaware “dismissed a party's motion for re argument because it (sic) had misled the Court.”
The U.S. court determined that the party in question sought “to secure an unfair tactical advantage, and (sic) “should forfeit its right to equity's aid. Otherwise, sharp practice will be rewarded, and the tradition of civility (in the court) will be threatened.” (Parfi Holding AB v Mirror Internet, Inc. 2008 WL 4110698 (Delaware Ch., Sept. 4, 2008), p 915).
*[Complaints have been filed to the Canadian Judicial Council relating to the conduct of Justice Fenlon in H130330, with as yet, no response. It is noted that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is married to a lawyer who is Executive Director for justices in each of the Canadian provinces].
Under BC Supreme Court Practice Directive: PD-26 Effective Date: 2010/07/12 Practice Direction www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supremecourt/Orders: Summary:
“This Practice Direction provides direction in relation to aspects of the process for entry of orders. “Direction: Order Made following appearances in chambers. 1. An order submitted to the registry for entry following an appearance in chambers will be checked by the registrar against the clerk's notes. 2. If the order submitted corresponds to the clerks notes and is not otherwise questioned by the registrars the registrar will sign the order. 3. If the order submitted to the registry does not correspond with the clerks notes the order must be approved by the judge.”
“A draft order in response of an application of which notice is not required is submitted to a judge or master once the appropriate materials in support of the application is sufficient (sic) AFTER WHICH THE ORDER WILL BE ENTERED.”
Deputy District Registrar Zoe Drakos is seen to have signed the order without following the Practice Directive of BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert “Bobby” Bauman.
Why did BC Court Services and BCGEU Deputy Registrar Zoe Drakos accept this application for filing without any evidence that it is valid (in fact it never occurred)? Worse yet, why did Justice Fenlon endorse the order nearly 6 months later without herself checking its validity?
Following the hearing of May 9th, 2013, Ita Robbins and Frana Matich file an appeal to the BC Court of Appeal. The appeal filed is a conventional appeal. [A foreclosure order (Order Nisi) may only be appealed by way of leave to appeal process (permission to appeal first)].
It is worthwhile to note at this point that the fraudulent Order Made After Application filed May 31st, 2013 by Law Society co conspirators Ronald Bakonyi (CMIC) and Robert Ellis (BMO Bank of Montreal) is redundant to the actual procedural order from May 9th, 2013 hearing, where Fenlon J. does not grant Glen P. Robbins a right of audience, but refused to do so on the mistaken (GPR says corrupted) basis of Grauer J's October 3, 2011 Reasons relating to provincial legislation under section 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act.
[As indicated, this refusal to grant audience does not constitute an ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION because a discretionary decision to deny a right of audience is a procedural matter, while any order obtained following petition is a substantive matter]. [Fenlon refers to the right of audience as 'housekeeping'].
Furthermore, the right of audience “procedural” order denied by Fenlon J. on the inappropriate (fraudulent) basis of the Grauer J order occurred in court transcript prior to the order nisi, (which occurred following a court recess), and provides the basis from which to attack the legitimacy of the Order Nisi as the foreclosure order follows the so called application relating to right of audience, once the May 31, 2013 Order Made After Application filed is rescinded or if the fraudulent order remains once the contradiction is reconciled that in order to be a party to an application a person would be granted standing by the applicant.
If an actual Rule 8 application had been made as it concerned Glen Robbins attendance to speak on behalf of his wife it would have to first be filed in the court (one wasn't), served on Glen Robbins and then heard as a claim for substantive relief.
As indicated, GPR attends to the May 9, 2013 afternoon hearing following consultations during the recess (once it has been determined by GPR that the entire hearing is part of a colluded effort between the lawyers involved (including Fenlon J.), and returns to the court to pronounce that the solution going forward is to acquire not just a Power of Attorney from IR (FM) but in acquiring an Enduring Power of Attorney. [Robert Ellis asks Robbins if his recess contact was his nephew Ryan Dalziel, a lawyer with Bull Housser & Tupper]. [It is this query that suggests that the May 31, 2013 was a panicked response from Bakonyi and Ellis who then elect to go all in with their nefarious conduct].
Ron Bakonyi is served with the BC Court of Appeal documents appealing the May 9th, 2013 orders. Initially Bakonyi files an appearance to the conventional appeal, and then contests the nature of the appeal (accurately claiming the appeal of the order nisi must be by leave of the court). [The conventional appeal deals with matters other than the order nisi alone]. However the (conventional) appeal filing would clearly apply to the May 31, 2013 Order Made After Application.
GPR and IR attend to the law offices of James Davidson law firm in Surrey BC and meet with Ross Davidson, lawyer. They are both advised by Davidson that the original loan agreement (with Peet & Cowan Financial Services) [on its face] does not 'add up' with some $30,000 in overcharges (over and above the unconscionable nature of the loan and mortgage agreements and additional $11,000 'stolen' by Robert Ellis for BMO Bank of Montreal).
They are further advised by Davidson that he believes the loan agreement is not properly accounted and it and the mortgage registration are improper. He asks IR and GPR if it is her (their) wish to 'get out from under these mortgages free and clear' [because of their unconscionable nature].
Ita and Glen Robbins have both now obtained so called independent legal advice and hire Ross Davidson [who does nothing on the file].
GPR and IR are advised by Davidson that an Enduring Power of Attorney can be drafted from Ita Robbins to Glen P. Robbins filed with Land Title Office in New Westminster, British Columbia. Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins then instruct Ross Davidson to prepare two Enduring Powers of Attorney, the first as indicated from Ita Robbins to Glen P. Robbins and the other from Glen P. Robbins to Ita Robbins.
Ross Davidson advised GPR and IR that a Enduring Power of Attorney cannot apply if the person to whom the EPA is donated has an interest in the property. Glen P. Robbins does not have an interest in the property in dispute under H130330 so this provision is not applicable to him. Ross Davidson registers the Enduring Power of Attorney from Ita Robbins to Glen P. Robbins on October 6, 2013 at Land Title Office.
Here is the pdf link to the Enduring Power of Attorney published online by independent consultant hired by Glen P. Robbins through 3rd party.
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/11/14/20131112142852810/
On October 6, 2013 Glen P. Robbins has legal custody of all matters and issues relating to the Coquitlam Honeysuckle property. An Enduring Power of Attorney does not necessarily guarantee a right of audience (but it is worth legally determining if this is the case or not).
Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins are further advised by Davidson that he spoke with Ron Bakonyi with regards to an application Bakonyi had made to the BC Court of Appeal (all affirmed in affidavit(s)) seeking orders that the order nisi cannot be overturned without first seeking leave from that court.

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