Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Public Interest Alert: Court Filing details of B.C. & Canada Largest Real Estate-Mortgage Broker-MIC, Chartered Bank, Court Services - Money (Mortgage) Laundering: IRobbins vs Cambridge Mortgage-BMO Bank, BC & Canadian gov & Judiciary (1)
  Mar 21, 2019

Commentary
We open these submissions with provisions in affidavit of Glen P. Robbins filed in Supreme Court of Canada docket 35772 Google v Equutek. It is an Intervener application to that case---but intended to accomplish so much more… The main case (‘The Mother Case’) is IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment (BCSC Vancouver H130330 {lower court} and Supreme Court of Canada 35772. [Please obtain a copy of the Google v Equutek submissions at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca].
They are also available at www.robbinssceresearch.com which links are also provided at the bottom of these submissions]. This along with facsimile of documents to public media – and provision of details provided to many lawmakers including BC Cabinet, Federal Justice Minister and PMO and to all 3 levels of court – make relevant State Actors ‘aware’ and responsible. (ED: Legal Service of documents is any acknowledgement that the recipient could have reasonably come to be aware with an ordinary amount of effort – GPR on BC Court of Appeal decision on document service). Please note that all of the document exhibits relating to affidavit of Glen P. Robbins involving all documents referenced herein are found in the Supreme Court of Canada records. These links have been widely read by the public and relevant Institutions according to ‘Intel’ for RSR ROBBINS (“The Most Accurate Pollster in the World”) TM.
The Google v Equustek submissions by Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”) reflect the extraordinary efforts made by IRobbins and GPR to bring the matter of criminal malfeasance involving a number of State Actors, (“criminal malfeasance”) to the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada. At this point in time The Supreme Court of Canada has already been contaminated by the criminal malfeasance (IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage 35772), infecting (5) of the Judges of Canada’s top court including the new Chief Justice, Richard Wagner originally from Quebec (Circa: Year of our Lord 2014).
Key elements in this criminal malfeasance include BC Justices (Judges Act) who are Federal employees – (ED: though there appears to be evidence of benefits being provided by the Province of BC) who are exposed to not only act contemptuously of other ‘brother and sister’ Judge’s orders within BC Superior Court (Vancouver), but also (ED: working in conjunction with the Law Society of British Columbia, a number of lawyer members and the Government of British Columbia), … …make a conscious plan to assist lawyers and criminal lender clients to subvert and pervert justice against the (protagonist) IRobbins.
Here then are paragraphs from the affidavit of Glen P. Robbins filed with submissions in application for Intervenor status in Google v Equutek (sufficient to inform the court) read by Justice Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada: (*)At para 28 of Affidavit of Glen P. Robbins made May 26, 2016 (“GPR”) read by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown (36602 Google v Equutek) references affidavit of Vera Cosovan of Sutton Realty in reference to events in 2014 and specifically the Conduct of Sale Order and appeal of order:
*“That all communications and warnings made to Ms. Cosovan were reported to Sutton Realty including all Vancouver local offices, the head office for Canada, the Vancouver and Fraser Valley Real Estate Boards, the BC Attorney General, federal Justice Minister and Canadian Press” (by facsimile).
At para 43 GPR writes to Justice Brown in Affidavit dated May 26, 2016: *“That at all times and in all places, the Attorney General of British Columbia and both chief justices of the superior courts were fully aware of these ongoing matters”.. (relating to criminal activities ongoing at the court).
At para 44 GPR writes to Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown: *“What is clear is that the application of the Order of a Justice drafted by Cambridge Investment Corporation (“CMIC”) legal counsel Ronald Bakonyi (ED: tying BC Court of Appeal to the fraud at the lower court H130330) could have not been derived from “orders granted to the Respondent” (CMIC) on April 23rd, 2014 and April 24th, 2014 – fraudulent orders (so BC Court of Appeal carries the fraud on behalf of CMIC)”…
At para 45 GPR writes: *“That I verily believe these actions identified by Mr. Bakonyi and his clients Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation and Peet and Cowan Financial Services including criminal charges..”
At para 66 GPR writes to Justice Brown of Supreme Court of Canada in Affidavit May 26, 2016: *“That I verily believe Ronald Bakonyi at all times working at the instruction of Jonathan Cowan (Francis Peet) knowingly and fraudulently obtained orders dismissing the appeal of conduct of sale order and vacant possession order” (also dismissal of application to be added as party GPR).
At para 68 GPR writes to Justice Brown in lawful application/affidavit: *“That I verily believe that Mr. Bakonyi failed to disclose the stay (order) of Kloegman J.” (made April 7, 2014) (to BC Supreme Court, BC Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada (35772).
At para 69 GPR writes in Affidavit of May 2016 accepted to be read by Justice of S.C.C. “That, but for Mr. Bakonyi filing his application for vacant possession for hearing April 7, 2014 no order would have been made for stay of proceedings by Kloegman J. (and) the hearing of Glen P. Robbins application to be added as party consented to by IRobbins and FM and appeal of conduct of sale order for April 23rd 2014 and April 24th, 2014
hearing dates” (ED:controlled by GPR and IRobbins with no obligation of notice to Bakonyi – Cambridge owing to their failure to file application response or response to appeal). (GPR says: The half wit lawyer was the author of his own and his client’s demise). At para 74 of GPR affidavit (Supreme Court of Canada 36602): *“I (GPR) include in this evidence…judicial notes obtained by me on December 7th, 2015 from desk ‘210’ Vancouver courthouse subsequent to appointment made with the court manager responsible for custody of these (court clerk) notes…(attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).
From para 78: *“That the transcript evidence shows (sic) that I (GPR) did all of the speaking on behalf of myself, IRobbins (sic) and FM (sic) in this proceeding.”
From para 80: *“That the vacant possession order made April 24, 2014 (illegally) during the stay (order) period ordered by Kloegman J. reveals transcript evidence from Justice Smith (ED: Davies J.) that if (GPR) had attended (to a lawful application)….he (Smith J.) (ED: Davies J.) would not have heard from him….not because of the Fenlon J. order but because of the vacant possession order of Hinkson CJ.)”
From para 81 of affidavit of Glen P. Robbins read by Brown J. of SCC: *“That on March 22, 2014 (sic) Sue Smolen Trial Scheduling manager (BC Supreme Court – 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, B.C., indicated that the reserved judgment of Hinkson CJ would probably take 60-90 days owing to the extensive materials to be read – taking decision until May – June 2014.”
From para 83 of affidavit May 2016: *“That I verily believe the Court Clerk’s notes provided at Exhibit “B” (sic) to be evidence of the linkage of the Order Made After Application of May 9, 2013 filed under H130330…and its advancement through court processes with false statement and false evidence submission to the court…(further) evidence (in conjunction) with (contempt of court) of stay of execution order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014 is evidence of irrefutable linkage to conspiracy to defraud and theft, as well as other criminal activities.”
From para 89: *“That I verily believe that all orders which followed the unlawful Order Made After Application of May 9, 2013 including: (a) order nisi); (b) conduct of sale, (c) vacant possession, all form part of an intentional unlawful conduct conspiracy or alternatively, malfeasance, misfeasance (non feasance) on the part of numerous members of the Law Society of British Columbia, Justices of the BC Supreme Court appointed by the Govenor General of Canada with affirmation by the Privy Council and Cabinet (federal and provincial (BC) from recommendations by BC Attorney General.”
From para 115: “That I verily believe that if lawyers are able to produce and file fraudulent orders (sic) they have no (legal) authority to file, that do not correspond to actual court orders made, lie to the court, than the province, the country and International bodies need to ask, just how many of these fraudulent orders (have been) (sic) filed in the court every day, every week, month and so on in the Province of British Columbia and in the country.”
The language and the law seem complex in these submissions – they aren’t really – law is an inefficiently busy enterprise with its own language. Distilled to the heart of this IRobbins v Cambridge matter –is the already proven assertion that people paid very well to act at the ‘Apex of public interest’ were more interested in covering up criminal activity, or committing criminal malfeasance themselves, desirous at all times and places of causing harm - including aiding and abetting the theft of IRobbins home of nearly a quarter century, as well as all of her collectibles and other belongings including many relating to the family history and children’s experience at their Honeysuckle home insured for many thousands of dollars. Is this type of Institutional fraud a well known practice among State Actors or was this a one off? (See: BC Rail). Simply put, the Government of British Columbia worked consciously to aid and abet other State and Sub State actors and, inclusive of the Federal Government of Canada, used their authority, including their powers in the Judicial system, to ruin her financially – all to cover up lawyer fraud in real estate mortgage registration of criminal or otherwise constructively fraudulent interest rates linked to government Land Title registration.
The court case where the worst of the criminal malfeasance occur(s) in BCSC case file No.: H130330. Vancouver courthouse BC Supreme Court. {For purposes of these submissions Glen P. Robbins will make his own claim for damages against State Actors including Chief Justice Hinkson who he privately believes was put in his position as Chief Justice in November 2013, specifically to help Cambridge Mortgage and the Law Society of BC to commit contempt, and to cover up the malfeasance and the subprime mortgage fraud underneath, and to use the opportunity to kill any opportunity for Glen P. Robbins to collect on Default Judgment from 2000 which Judgment would include him}. Glen P. Robbins is asserting that Chief Justice Hinkson took the job of chief justice to save his own skin and that of the Law Society of BC – and crooked lenders – the Law Society of BC was earning tens of millions from.
Accordingly, these submissions are zeroed in on attaining the object of having IRobbins (the homeowner) and three other related women compensated for damages. Please keep in mind when information relating to the various heads of award of damages (that when) considering Punitive (Windfall) Damages – it is imperative to understand that these types of damages are intended under the law to appropriately ‘punish’ wrongdoers (in civil actions tortfeasors/defendants), and by Supreme Court of Canada decision as a windfall to those to whom harm was caused. In fact under Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the subject the large amounts of Punitive Damages often paid out – but are done so only in the worst of cases. This case is the worst of the worst in its classification. At no time – in Canadian history has any one person or groups of defendants been so egregiously treated by numerous State Actors, often and frequently acting in concert.
GPR says he has canvassed many cases where the State or Sub State actors have caused harm to an ordinary consumer – and this (IRobbins v Cambridge) is by leaps and bounds ‘worse’ than any other. Please keep in mind also the weight of decision relative to the public interest which is not separate and distinct from the State interest. One cannot separate the interest of the Institution from the Public Interest. I include this from the 2006 Canadian Criminal Law Review on the Public Interest which I believe must prevail in terms of a decision about total compensation. Please note how the lawyers are immediately extracted from any ‘equation’ involving the public interest. IRobbins is the modern reconciliation of weak consumer protection and a symbolic victory against those white collar criminals who have stolen millions and millions of dollars from consumers.
From Canadian Criminal Law Review February, 2006 “In the name of the Public Good: “Public Interest” as a Legal Standard” (M. Deborah MacNair Copyright 2006 by Thomson Canada Limited. A Carswell Publication; M. Deborah MacNair). “The public interest standard has detractors. Case law under the Charter [FN6] would suggest that vagueness and arbitrariness in the determination of the constitutional validity of legislation remain as concerns. In that respect the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a balancing test to weigh the individual and community interests at stake. This, in turn, has led to a debate about the role of the courts and the legislatures in fashioning public policy for the community. It has been suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada's role, far from acting as a roadblock for Parliament, inspires informed public debate so that individual values can be reconciled with the development of policies for the public good. [FN7] Others suggest that the legal concepts developed by the courts in assisting those groups that are legally vulnerable fall short. [FN8] Secondly, public interest standing before the courts, particularly if Attorneys General will not litigate an issue or will act illegally, is the subject of ongoing debate. [FN9] Thirdly,there is an emerging debate about the duty of public officials, and how to make them accountable, and how administrative law can or should respond to those affected by their decision-making. By legal tradition the rule of law and administrative law act as the counterbalance to administrative discretion. It has been suggested that the exercise of a public official's authority should be treated as a public trust and that there should be a movement towards the development of public law duties that are based on equitable principles. As a result, public officials would be expected to act fairly, reasonably and in the public interest. [FN10] Lastly, some question if internal bureaucratic review, without meaningful external scrutiny, is enough as there is little time with operational exigencies to reflect on the legitimacy and content of the standard itself and to assess if, over time, it has changed. Similarly, legislators focus on making law and are bound by certain operational constraints. While legislators are accountable to constituents, and generally are not otherwise accountable by enforceable legal or equitable *178 remedies, [FN11] public officials can be held accountable, by means including civil actions for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, abuse of authority [FN12] and malicious prosecution.”
*The lower court justice in both the IRobbins v Cambridge and Google v Equustek is Laurie Anne Fenlon (Fenlon J.) The Most Obvious Criminal Malfeasance-contempt of Judicial Order for Stay of Execution-lying to the Supreme Court of Canada. On April 7, 2014 under H130330 (ED: Cambridge v IRobbins foreclosure) a “stay of execution” order (ED: stay of execution – stop immediately – freeze the case) and an order that “no further documents be filed” is made by BC Supreme Court Justice Kloegman (retired). The stay order is valid until April 30, 2014.
So --Cambridge Mortgages’ lawyer Ron Bakonyi is instructed by his clients Cambridge Mortgage and Peet and Cowan Financial Services to break the law and defy the stay of execution order of Madame Justice Kloegman -- - ---sneak into BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC, (ED: riding of aboriginal Justice Minister for Canada Jody Wilson Raybould) by ‘the backdoor’ on April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014 to obtain 3 orders in contempt of the Kloegman J. order. These criminally obtained fraudulent orders will later be used to illegally steal IRobbins property (all of her property). Glen P. Robbins speaking on behalf of IRobbins calls the IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage a “State Sanctioned Home Invasion.”
By the end of this the reader will come to realize that IRobbins had all of her lifelong possessions her home – stolen – leaving her nothing – because ultimately she failed to pay BMO Bank one month’s mortgage in 2010.
The Google v Equustek Application (Glen P. Robbins (the non lawyer “Officious Bystander”): The Google v Equustek application to the S.C.C. (36602) by Glen P. Robbins involves BC Supreme Court Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon, (ED: and as at this writing a justice at BC Court of Appeal) a central figure in the IRobbins v Cambridge legal case. (ED: For purposes of these submissions on behalf of IRobbins, Glen P. Robbins wants ‘decision makers’ to (ultimately) consider if his efforts showcased herein as a “solicitor” – ‘procedural generalship’ – when added to his aforementioned meritorious skill as a barrister (BCSC S111171 Justice Grauer and Vancouver Sun), in context of the (1) high (unscientific) emotional drama of so called professionals, (2) unnecessary and illegal interference by lawyers and a few sour justices – (3) fraud, contempt of court, malfeasance and breach of trust (of high office, judicial office)-fare and compare to his efforts in defence of his wife and family for no fee, particularly when measured against the cause of the problems – pitifully written legislation of the Legal Profession Act, not in the public interest as they claim to their actions to be).
Glen P. Robbins wants every injunction or order obtained by Law Society of BC against him rescinded, nullified – eviscerated –with order back to 2010 (Ed: IRobbins v BMO upcoming). This done – the legal dominos all fall in favour of IRobbins et al. Compensation MUST be made available to IRobbins et al for matters pertaining to what is essentially a home invasion and stealing of their home and property by the State through organized court fraud at the top of the judicial food chain through to the Law Society of British Columbia and the RCMP (City of Coquitlam).
*Solution 1: Declare: Glen P. Robbins a lawyer equivalent to a lawyer recognized by the Canadian Bar with permission to charge fees for service as any other lawyer recognized by the Canadian Bar might do for his legal work on behalf of his wife and family. Pay Glen P. Robbins an equivalent fee to what Elizabeth Lyall charges x 3,500 hours ($2,000,000) deducting lawful amount to satisfy tax under the Income Tax Act (ED: not more, not double). (ED: Basi Virk lawyer got $7,000,000 of their legal bill paid by tax payers – and did no time for their crimes in the BC Rail scandal considered by more enlightened British Columbians to be the original fraud cover up – using the courts to do so – and then later hiding the lower court justice who helped the stall in the lower court- to a position at BC Court of Appeal (same as Fenlon J.)). Justice Barry Davies made order that Glen P. Robbins “be treated as a lawyer at all times” (1996). GPR believes that making the current order he seeks (*Declared) retroactive to the 1996 Davies order, and further ordering that GPR be permitted to declare himself a lawyer at all times and all places would go a long way to straightening many of the problems – simply by legitimizing and rewarding Glen P. Robbins for his work – a sign of respect. GPR would then also immediately retire from the Canadian Bar Association.
The reader will come to understand the relevance of Glen P. Robbins request to be treated as a lawyer and for legal fees in this unique case. IRobbins cheated out of possessions worth nearly $2,000,000 – remains left on a pallet in a warehouse in South Burnaby – like a dead body. Bakonyi- Cambridge-BMO cheated IRobbins, the BC Court’s helped them to cheat IRobbins. The Government of British Columbia particularly the BC Attorney General helped cheat IRobbins. Constitutionally appointed (ED: with no public disclosure of actual judicial quality) Chief Justice Chris Hinkson, Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon and the Law Society of BC worked hard to help these parties cheat IRobbins. This will be demonstrated clearly and easily. It’s a brutal offence against 4 (Canadian) women (ED: combined women Canadian years 172)– by State actors eagerly willing break the law. The Criminal Malfeasance is no longer a secret to State Actors – Compensation Please!
IRobbins and (3) other women “KJ”, “VR” and “FM” – all family – seeking compensation of (stolen) home and property as well as more conventional damages, inclusive of court order interest, totaling estimated (rounded) damages of $8,000,000 (8 million dollars) with specific proven property loss estimated at < $2.5 million to IRobbins. The balance of the conventional damages are connected to normative heads of damages in personal injury claims including (1) non pecuniary and (2) aggravated damages. Distinct and separate from these conventional damages are Punitive Damages where IRobbins and (3) women are seeking between $26 million and $28 million. Case precedent has been provided to all relevant (defendant) parties most of whom are defendants under BCSC 149328 – a case file polluted by the most irresponsible actions of Chris Hinkson acting (badly) as Chief Justice. *These damages sought do not include damages being pursued Glen P. Robbins who intends to connect original lawsuit undefended by BC Attorney General from Vancouver Law Courts 012600 filed May 8, 2001 and served that same week on BC Attorney General and (then) MLA Christy Clark—and (then) Law Society of BC lawyer Chris Hinkson – the timing of his appointment to BC Supreme Court Justice from BC Court of Appeal 2013 – concurrent with his connected efforts with former law associate Michael Kleisinger and their ultimate interference, breach of trust, breach of fraud, inclusive of efforts to assist Bakonyi-Cambridge-Hinkson-Kleisinger (“co-malfeasance”) in cooperation with the Government of British Columbia and specific assistance of BC Attorney General in conjuction with an action against Google Search as well. Damages sought by GPR will be more consistent with higher damages in U.S. class actions.
As provided to elected persons and (mostly) others paid to act in the public interest from original disclosure April 1, 2018 referred to as “Notes relating to Honeysuckle” per IRobbins, KJ, VR, FM (“the women”): 1355 Honeysuckle Lane:
Specific Property Loss: Land, Buildings, Contents, “Rents”. Assessed Value (BC Assessment) 2017 $1,385,000. Glen P. Robbins estimate of List Price to BC Assessment (“LPBCA”) @ March 1, 2018 is 114/100 with BC Assessment@ 100. Glen P. Robbins asserts that this 114/100 ratio would have been 125/100 a year earlier based on lower BC Assessments relating to the previous real estate year, as well as higher list values. Reasonably, a List Value can be concocted at $1,600,000. Based on recent representations by Realtors that houses in this list area are down $30,000 to $50,000, we can reasonably estimate a sales price of $1,555,000. Insurance at time of property theft by court fraud was $950,000 inclusive of contents. Land Value alone was in $600,000 range (2014), and is a half million higher (2018). (ED: Please note that a residual amount ought to be remaining in an amount of $250,000 to $400,000 that has not been paid out from court fraud sale). A request for payment of the residual from H130330 represents the current BC Government and its Cabinet the opportunity to avert being listed as parties and settle the matter like responsible people (government too).
Contents: Contents insured for $250,000. Collectibles, coins, stamps, collectibles for IR, KJ and VR $170,000. (NB Insurer and agent of many years put on notice of demand for payout of claim inclusive of court documents proving credibility (2014) (2015). Head offices in U.S. & Canada. No response. Well established English law establishes loss of rents on property at (5.5%) for decades. This is consistent with the averaged year over year growth in real estate values across spectrum of democratized countries documented by International bodies from evidence gathered over the last half century. Accordingly, from July 2014 (taking of property, detention) until July 2015 “Rents” are $85,520. Amount owing to IR at July 14, 2015 estimated @ $1,640,000. July 2015 to July 2016 ($90,200) in “Rents” & total cumulative amount owing ($1,730,000). July 2016 to 2017 “Rents” ($95,000) for cumulative total of $1,825,000. July 14, 2017 to July 2018 “Rents” ($100,371) and cumulative total ($1,925,000). Sub total Property Loss: ($1,925,000) + (250,000) or ($2,170,000). IR’s claim at this juncture on Specific Property Loss is ($2,062,000), while KJ and VR’s property loss is ($54,000) each. (NB “FM” is on title and claims pursuant to her lost rights making no claim on economic loss, as the private matters between “FM” and “IR” as they pertain to Honeysuckle have been concluded.
Non Pecuniary Damages: (Pain & Suffering). The Supreme Court of Canada trilogy from decades ago set non pecuniary damages at $100,000 and subject to inflation which has brought recent amounts to near $500,000. Glen P. Robbins suggests the default rate under the Interest Act (5%) would be appropriate not as interest per se, but as a rationale method of producing a higher standard for these damages to reflect, along with aggravated damages, a sense of loss and suffering. I would thus assess non pecuniary damages for IR at ($760,000). I would assess non pecuniary damages for KJ, VR & FM at one third of IR’s or ($254,000) to each of those (3) three.
Total: Non Pecuniary Damages: ($1,522,000).
Aggravated Damages: Aggravated Damages are “compensation for losses such as grief, humiliation, wounded pride, ‘that the defendant(s) could reasonably foresee’.” Often these arrive at an amount about (70%) or better of non pecuniary damages, although there are instances where they are higher than those damages. Given the high level of meanness taken against these women by the defendants, I would assess aggravated damages at (80%) of IR’s non pecuniary amount or ($608,000) and apply equally to all (4) claimants. Total Aggravated Loss: ($2,432,000).
Other Claims: “Costs” & “Disbursements” ($400,000) in “Costs” & “Disbursements” based on 10 times amount claimed through the court fraud. IR has been resident of North Burnaby, Vancouver Heights for nearly 4 years now since the Modern Government Holocaust of the Individual (“MGHI”) against her. She enjoys shopping at Hastings Street, and grew up in the area. It is, all things being equal, about ($350,000) more expensive to purchase a home here for her. Ordered Interest: Glen P. Robbins suggests (5%) Interetst even though it is more than Registrars rate, (kept lower by influence of low interest rates). (ED: This is considered by U.S. Federal Reserve as normal rate)
Total Loss: Heads of Damage: Property Loss, Economic Loss, Non Pecuniary Damages, Aggravated Damages, Other Damages (before Punitive Damages): ($6,874,000-$6,904,000) divided as follows: IRobbins = $4,118,000 inclusive of house, land, property (stolen) – rents, costs, interest plus non pecuniary and aggravated loss (but not court ordered interest-which should reflect ROI more suitable to amount of compensation). IRobbins would like money to purchase a property ASAP. IRobbins damage claim as at 10/9/2018 $2,062,000 (house +), $760,000 (non pecs), $608,000 (aggravated damages), $400,000 (Costs), $350,000 (extra for Burnaby North), plus Interest at 5% 4.5 years (until Jan. 2019) or $900,000 – total IRobbins $5,080,000.
(Note that over one half of IRobbins ordinary case precedent damages are related to actual property loss {no response from Wawanesa insurance). FM = ‘On title’ - $1,055,950; KJ & VR (daughters their family home) = $1,116,000 (each). Total Damages: $8,367,950 (before Punitive Damages).
Proving IRobbins House and Property Claim: Here are other home ‘prices’ provided as comparisons to 1355 Honeysuckle, also provided April 1, 2018 or thereabouts (6 months) to decision makers. These relevant homes values are as follows: Premise 1: List Value (“LV”) should be used in calculations as actual sales prices are impossible to determine in any meaningful way in real market time. Given this, and the fact that a Federal Court determination of last year supports greater timely disclosure (presently before S.C.C. (to delay market crash (GPR))), it would be prejudicial to IR et al to use anything but the List Value for purposes of assessing lost property value. Premise 2: A Valuation of IR’s property @ 1355 Honeysuckle Lane ® for purposes of assessing specific property loss should include an averaging of these percentages and a tinkering here or there to %. Honeysuckle is assessed around $1,400,000. To date, even the hundreds of thousands of $$ leftover prior to the theft of property has not been paid out. A Holocaust of property loss. You (State Actors in a state of awareness of facts under their nose) already have the notes on compensation, as well as notes on my assessment that overall Robbins v. Cambridge is a much worse circumstance than Boss Power Uranium settlement of over $30 million (Canadian) in 2012 dollars. Using the 5 per cent default rate under Interest Act Canada (Reminder to federal government, Interest is their responsibility under the Constitution (not aiding Goldman Sachs); the Boss Power amount is about $40,202,869.22. IRobbins et al must be compensated more than Boss Power. IRobbins property loss is objective, while Boss Power’s was subjective. What is the contra argument?
The case precedent in Supreme Court of Canada involving a court action in the State of Florida (Beals v.) (International Comity) involved the Canadian high court affirming ‘an equivalent’ $60,000,000 in damages (actual damages lower) asserted in Glen P. Robbins affidavit in Google v Equustek where at paragraph GPR writes to Justice Brown: *“That in Beals v Saldanha, Supreme Court of Canada, Neutral Citation: 2003 SCC 72, Case Number 28829 matter of conflict of laws involving Florida law and orders made in that U.S. State. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Florida court orders against original judgment…where final orders..were 32.5 times the original amount of damages.”
From paragraph 111 of affidavit of GPR before Justice Brown: *“ That I verily believe ascertainable specific loss suffered by my wife…(base at time of submission) to be in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000 (ED: before rents – interests- transplant expense/cost), and replacement of property)….the extrapolation based on multiplier of damages from “Beals” by the Supreme Court of Canada could be ranged from $19,000,000 to $104,000,000 (a similar range as Boss Power).
From paragraph 112: “..(B)ased on my professional assessment of damages which I believe would apply in the IRobbins (sic) matter would render a final award at $35,000,000 (and from paragraph 113) $53,000,000.”
Finance Minister James is included because the original agreement at 98.7% A.P.R occurred on BC Government letterhead. BC Consumer Protection is under authority of Finance as are provisions for Finance & Attorney General proceeding to court on an applicant’s behalf where an unconscionable loan was made. This unconscionable loan was then converted to another company (Cambridge Mortgage) which filed a mortgage registration at another lawful rate (2 different % rates actually @ Land Title). (ED: In conservation with Land Title they do not check the mortgage filing other than two names (not interest rate disclosure).
The public has not received Notice. 1. Property: 2901 Hedgestone Court, Coquitlam, LV: $1,888,000, BC Assessment $1,474,000 – increase of {22.5%}; 2. Property: 1551 Salai Crescent, Coquitlam, LV $1,840,000, BC Assessment $$1,267,000 – increase of {31%}; 3. Property: 3178 Arrowsmith Place, Coquitlam, LV $1,798,000, BC Assessment $1,692,000 – increase of {6%}; 4. Property: 3089 Robson Drive, Coquitlam, LV $1,798,000, BC Assessment $1,400,000 – increase of {21%}; 5. Property: 3157 Silverthrone Drive, Coquitlam, LV $1,780,000, BC Assessment $1,475,000 – increase of {17%}; 6. Property: 1387 Charland Avenue, Coquitlam, LV $1,780,000, BC Assessment $1,184,000 – increase of {34%}; 7. Property: 253 Diamond Crescent, Coquitlam, LV $1,750,000, BC Assessment $1,552,000 – increase of {11%}; 8. Property: 2429 Cougar Court, Coquitlam, LV $1,749,000, BC Assessment $1,339,000 – increase of {24%}; 9. Property: 3080 Wren Place, Coquitlam, LV $1,749,000 BC Assessment $1,539,000 – increase of {12%}; 10. Property: 2535 Fuchsia Place, Coquitlam, LV $1,728,000, BC Assessment $1,470,000 – increase of {15%}; 11. Property: 2260 Sicamous Avenue, Coquitlam, LV $1,688,000, BC Assessment $1,567,000 – increase of {7%}; 12. Property: 1569 Pinetree Way, Coquitlam, LV $1,688,000, BC Assessment $1,537,000 – increase of {9%}; 13. Property: 651 Folsom Street, Coquitlam, LV $1,680,000, BC Assessment $1,534,000 – increase of {9%}; 14. Property: 1503 Bellflower Court, Coquitlam, LV $1,666,800, BC Assessment $1,533,000 – increase of {8%}; 15. Property: 1088 Corona Crescent, Coquitlam, LV $1,645,000, BC Assessment $1,433,000 – increase of {13%}; 16. Property: 1689 Mallard Court, Coquitlam, LV $1,619,000, BC Assessment $1,619,000 – increase of {16%}; 17. Property: 2016 Turnberry Lane, Coquitlam, LV $1,598,000, BC Assessment $1,472,000 – increase of {9%}; 18. Property: 3462 Staples Court, Coquitlam, LV $1,598,000, BC Assessment $1,429,000 – increase of {11%}; 19. Property: 3316 Abbey Lane, Coquitlam, LV $1,588,000, BC Assessment $1,299,000 – increase of {19%}; 20. Property: 2630 Limestone Place, Coquitlam, LV $1,579,000, BC Assessment $1,438,000 – increase of {9%}; 21. Property: 807 Fowler Crescent, Coquitlam, LV $1,568.000, BC Assessment $1,351,000 – increase of {14%}.
The Guts of the Worst Case of Malfeasance involving State Actors against Citizen(s) in Canadian History: IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage. Legal submissions first identifying the criminal malfeasance as referenced (on docket as well) occur when read by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown. These submissions involve some 800 paragraph entries of that affidavit signed by BC Notary Jacqueline D. Kinsey May 24, 2016 – here are affidavit entries related to a Stay of Execution order made by BC Supreme Court Justice Kloegman April 7, 2014:
“718. “That I provide the notes from Justice Kloegman of April 7, 2014 application for vacant possession (Cambridge) (adjourned): At 10:43:37 Justice Kloegman states: “The Application (of Cambridge) should wait until the hearing of the appeal” (of Master Tokarek’s order of December 9th, 2013).” “At 10:50:47 Justice Kloegman states: “So I would make the order stay of execution until April 30, 2014.” “At 11:07:34 “neither party can file anything further without leave of the court”
“719. That I have consulted with an individual “LM” who possesses a Ph D in linguistics from ..(sic) who is now finishing a law degree who determined this language of Justice Kloegman in particular the word “would” in “So I ‘would’ make the order of stay of execution until April 30, 2014” to mean… “Here is what is going on…Kloegman says application (vacant possession) should wait..so this sets up something that should happen..The word ‘so’ in the second statement brings certainty to ‘would’ make the order stay of execution..” “It sounds like XYZ should happen, therefore I would make the stay of execution, so I don’t think ‘would’ has any condition under normal circumstances.”
“723. That I understand and have canvassed Supreme Court of Canada decisions involving interpretation of language given that Canada has two official languages, English and French. That I verily believe the French interpretation of the word “would” in context of the ‘speaker’ in this instance (Kloegman J.) to be indicative of “a “future-in-the-past” order”. “This ‘historic future’ use of “would” is typical in museum description and historical accounts” (i.e. French museums citing “the king will die in 1457” (when he already dead). This concept of the interpretation of the word usage “would” is further supported through English narratives…where (sic) “would is used to denote an event future to the current point in the narrative, but nonetheless actually occurring in the past.”
“720. According to legal definition in Black’s and elsewhere the generally accepted definition of the legal concept of “stay” is defined as follows… “A stay is the act of temporarily stopping a judicial proceeding through the order of a court.” “A stay is a suspension of a case or a suspension of a particular proceeding within a case. A judge may grant a stay on the motion of a party to the case or issue a stay sua sponte…without the request of a party (ED: A stay motion was filed by IRobbins). There are two main types of stay; a stay of execution and a stay of proceedings. A stay of execution postpones the enforcement of a judgment against a litigant who has lost a case.”
We know Bakonyi (Cambridge) cannot legally obtain an order for vacant possession until after April 30, 2014. Bakonyi and Cambridge decide to act in contempt of the Stay of Execution order. Bakonyi-Cambridge obtains a vacant possession order April 24, 2014 while the stay of execution order was in force.
Bakonyi is somehow able to get BC Justice Nathan Smith to sign this vacant possession order in the courtroom. (ED: The normal process is to obtain the order of the court obtain court clerk’s notes of the order and file a prepared draft order with court clerk’s notes which the Court takes up the Justice for signature). We know Bakonyi cannot get a dismissal order of the appeal of the conduct of sale order until after April 30, 2014. Bakonyi obtains a dismissal order {again from Smith J.} on April 24, 2014 during the stay of execution order. The order dismissing the appeal of conduct of sale on the Court Transcript for hearing that day reveals Smith J. granting the order [however no (actual) order for dismissal is ever filed with the court registry]. [ED: Notwithstanding the airtight stay of execution, Smith J. could not be both a ‘court of appeal justice’ and regular justice hearing an application under the same hearing]. We know both the conduct of sale and vacant possession orders are normally obtained subsequent to obtaining an order nisi over a period of foreclosure extending from order nisi to Order Absolute.
Normally a stay of execution order freezes all orders in the case – the legal implication here is that the stay of execution captures the original order for foreclosure – beyond the subsequent illegal order obtained to dismiss appeal of the conduct of sale order - during the stay of execution period. The stay of execution is a powerful order. It has unequivocal legal authority. What kind of insanity from within judicial ranks would be so brazen to simply disregard not one but three judicial orders? Later on we will also discuss a fraudulent court order obtained by Bakonyi for Cambridge, and Ellis for BMO (Order Made After Application), an event that never occurred. Another intentional fraud on BC Supreme Court at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC serving to underscore the duration of time where fraud is being committed – by persons entrusted with the public interest. Is there any end to the criminal fraud on the court? Read on:
In between the Bakonyi-Cambridge originating petition with: (1) No LPA, BC Civil Rules, Stare Decisis disclosure in affidavit of triable issues, (2) A fraudulent notice of hearing, (3) a poorly orchestrated contempt of court exercise at hearing May 9, 2013 before Fenlon J. denying right of audience to Glen P. Robbins based on the order of Justice Grauer (15(5)) (and not the full judgment relating to subsection 15(5)), including provisions in that subsection – the language contained within the provisions Grauer J. described as “clumsy” = (4) the 1st procedural order of Fenlon J.— AND the order nisi –=the 2nd (substantive)order of Fenlon J. and the filing of regular appeal by IRobbins to BC Court of Appeal of (1), (2), (3), (4) – Lurks the Order Made After Application –(ED: like finding an alligator in your pool) an application which never occurred. An Order which on its face to any Officious Bystander – let alone properly trained and instructed registry personnel—is based on no application at all, and is res judicata to the original procedural order made at hearing is a fraud upon the Court as well as a fraud upon IRobbins – and Glen P. Robbins.
The Order Made After Application filed in May 28th, 2013 infects the application by Bakonyi Cambridge for original conduct of sale order (obtained). The OMAA is a product of fraud – and is (then) used in affidavit evidence to support the obtaining of the conduct of sale order (December, 2013). Five Judges at Supreme Court of Canada - are then infected – no disclosure was provided to them of the stay of execution order and they inevitably shut down the case based on application of vexatious proceeding by Bakonyi-Cambridge – to cover up the court fraud. IRobbins did not have custody of the making of the Order for Stay of Execution. (ED: One wonders – how the panel of Judges at S.C.C. in IRobbins v Cambridge could not have held for IRobbins anyhow. The Grauer J. Reasons for Judgment, and the Transcript Evidence from the May 2013 foreclosure hearing (ED: relevant excerpts included in later pages).
The Conduct of Sale order made by Master (Tokarek) in Chambers includes very deliberate statements made on the court clerk’s notes – wherein Master Tokarek refuses audience to Glen P. Robbins based on the fraudulent Order Made After Application filed AFTER the May 9, 2013 initial foreclosure hearing. The 2nd court step normal to the foreclosure process is the Conduct of Sale order –(ED: following extinguishment of redemption period). The conduct of sale order was thus obtained directly related to a prima facie fraud. (ED: A substantive order would need to follow a substantive application pursuant to BC Civil Rule 8 Interlocutory Applications). Thus an order is made from nothing – completely fabricated.
The Appeal of the Conduct of Sale Order is specifically noted by court clerk notes under the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. April 7, 2014. Bakonyi-Cambridge seek orders from Kloegman J. that they will prepare and file all the orders of the court (because IRobbins (represented by FM under 15(1)) and had no say in the making of any orders, on the nominal occasions when they were permitted a fair hearing (or a hearing at all)). The Stay of Execution order made by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014 has yet to be filed with the court (2018). Kloegman J.’s orders have been contemptuously ignored. (ED: Ironically-Kloegman J. retires the same day as Honeysuckle is illegally taken involving police peaceful detention of Glen P. Robbins). *The Lieutenant Governor in Council for British Columbia (Cabinet) must immediately take steps to have Justice Kloegman’s April 7, 2014 (BCSC H130330) “order for stay of execution” (April 7th to April 30th, 2018)(Kloegman J.) and “order for no further document filing without leave” (April 7, 2014 Kloegman J.) on court clerk notes filed with the BC Supreme Court file No.: H130330. Once the stay of execution and further injunction on filing orders are filed by the Government of British Columbia – Office of Attorney General David Eby – or Cabinet, then naturally this will cause a chain reaction of other orders being overturned. The taking of IRobbins home on Honeysuckle Lane involved a crime. The Criminal Code is clear on this – taking of any person’s property based on fraud is a crime. A fraud on the court in disregard of a Constitutionally federally appointed Justice’s (stay of execution order (and other) – later used to fool (5) Supreme Court of Canada Judges – must constitute a crime as between Law Society member Ron Bakonyi and his client (ED: We must presume instructed him).
The taking of IRobbins home on Honeysuckle Lane involved a crime. The Criminal Code is clear on this – taking of any person’s property based on fraud is a crime. A fraud on the court in disregard of a Constitutionally federally appointed Justice’s (stay of execution order (and other) – later used to fool (5) Supreme Court of Canada Judges – must constitute a crime as between Law Society member Ron Bakonyi and his client (ED: We must presume instructed him). RCMP arriving without any authority or cause to be at IRobbins Honeysuckle home along with civil bailiffs who refused to double check with their superiors – and with police detaining GPR without cause and entering the property without any colour of right – in full consideration of other options available to them, along with Bakonyi-Cambridge knowingly using the original fraud of obtaining (3) orders during the stay of execution – not filing the orders with the court though having full custody of that obligation – makes this a crime. IRobbins could thus be compensated under “Victims of Crime”. (ED: The Supreme Court of Canada standard for police attending in a civil dispute is very high- proof of actual threat by individual with history of threatening police or judges with violence is the only basis for police in a civil enforcement matter).
This jury of elites and citizens –needs to know that the Chief Justice of the BC Court of Appeal Robert Bauman has been made aware of every detail of this case and was asked to file Kloegman J.’s order for stay of execution – to do this – the court would have to remove all of the orders obtained during the stay of execution including: (1) dismissal of Glen P. Robbins application to be added as party (with respondent consent order filed by requisition), (2) dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order, (3) vacant possession order. -to mention but a few. The criminal-contemptuous obtaining of order for dismissal of conduct of sale appeal – obtained by Bakonyi-Cambridge April 24th, 2014 means this dismissal occurred at a BC Court of Appeal – and thus permits linkage of the fraudulent activities occurring in the BC Supreme Court-BC Court of Appeal to The Supreme Court of Canada.
The fraud order obtained for vacant possession was obtained from that BC Court of Appeal Justice (Smith) (context: appeal of order of Master Tokarek Conduct of Sale order). The original Supreme Court of Canada filing IRobbins et al v Cambridge Mortgage (35772) is for an extension of time to file leave to appeal the order nisi. *We note that Bakonyi-Cambridge originally agreed – following hiring of Surrey lawyer Ross Davidson to made a procedural compromise. Bakonyi-Cambridge would agree to include the leave matter in the regular appeal, providing an extension of time were granted to Bakonyi-Cambridge who had failed to file their response documents to the regular appeal at BC Court of Appeal. This means that Bakonyi-Cambridge have no authority to defend the regular appeal and all of those matters – now capturing the Order Made Application (filed after Order Nisi but with directives offering hearing date – presuming within that fraud – that the (fraud) matter thus occurred prior to the granting of order nisi.
Why should IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins be doing all of the work? The BC Court of Appeal action commenced by IRobbins (ED: who added husband GPR as party) had not been made aware of the Order Made Application (ED: fake order) until long after they had filed their regular appeal, however the existing pleadings of that appeal or an amended appeal would capture the fake and fraudulent Order Made After Application – along with the phony, fake and fraudulent denial of right of audience order made procedurally by Fenlon J. at date of hearing of foreclosure petition. Such an amended appeal would also capture the appeal of conduct of sale order delivered by a Master of the Court (Where the appeal would be heard by a Justice of the BC Supreme Court) – with next level of hearing a BC court of appeal hearing (if necessary). We know the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal Supreme Court Act possess rules tying mandated stays of execution with orders of any appeal court of a superior provincial court justice. This mandated stay linkage would thus tie (at least) the appeal of the conduct of sale to the Supreme Court Act and the Supreme Court of Canada decisions inclusive of SCC 35772 (IRobbins v Cambridge) and 35302 (Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC).
This mandated stay linkage would thus tie (at least) the appeal of the conduct of sale to the Supreme Court Act and the Supreme Court of Canada decisions inclusive of SCC 35772 (IRobbins v Cambridge) and 35302 (Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC). We know the (1) petition of Cambridge Mortgage (in central IRobbins v Cambridge case) – is invalid, (2) the notice of hearing is invalid, and the bias – (3) cover up rehearing for her former boss at Fasken Martineau Elizabeth Lyall (ED: Who stunk at hearing as counsel for Law Society of BC – versus protaganist GPR) procedural order made by Fenlon J. relating to right of audience precedes the order nisi, while the fraudulent phony – … …criminal Order Made After Application is filed following the order nisi. The order nisi is thus wedged between 2 erroneous and illegal document filings, a purposeful orchestrated contempt of judicial order – (3) three miscarriages of justice by any name – and a completely fraudulent Order Made After Application.
We know that the order nisi is the beginning of foreclosure process requiring (at full extension of foreclosure authority) an Order Absolute through the redemption period attached to the order nisi. We know the conduct of sale is granted between the order nisi and Order Absolute (ED: In context vacant possession/writ of possession). (*We also know Bakonyi for Cambridge cut a deal to place the regular appeal with custody of the order nisi, normally requiring permission of the court. This deal was cut in the corridors outside the BC Court of Appeal with IRobbins lawyer Davidson representing her). (*We know Bakonyi for Cambridge also agreed to provide an actuarial report relating to the complaint of IRobbins insofar as the 98.7% unconscionable loan and constructive fraud of filing mortgage registration by Cambridge Mortgage (pre Bakonyi). We know the appeal of the order denying IRobbins an extension of time for filing leave of the order nisi (35772) is featured at Supreme Court of Canada. We know material information relating to the Stay of Execution order made by Kloegman J. (ED: after application by IRobbins) is not made available to the Supreme Court of Canada as Bakonyi-Cambridge-BMO was legally obligated to disclose.
Had a Stay of Execution order been filed as Bakonyi-Cambridge had pledged to the Judge they would do on behalf of the Court in their lawful capacity as officers of the Court, as member of the Law Society / (consumed as it were with the public interest) – it would thus be mandated to be material to the leave application docket 35772 IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage.
Unique Circumstances for Application to Supreme Court of Canada following Offer to Judgment to Province of British Columbia The details of these unique circumstances should encourage the Premier of British Columbia John Horgan under ‘Executive Directive’ as personal representative to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and in conjunction with the Supreme Court of Canada insist that the stay of execution order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014 should be directed to be filed by BC Attorney General David Eby. An original of this stay of execution order should also be filed with the Supreme Court of Canada. We also know that Bakonyi – Cambridge Mortgage demanded that his vacant possession application adjourned by Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014 must follow the outcome of the appeal of conduct of sale order. IRobbins believes that the order nisi should be captured by the convention BC Court of Appeal filing including the requisite Court of Appeal docket number and order to be filed at Supreme Court of Canada all things considered included the bargain made with Bakonyi-Cambridge outside the Chambers of Justice Tysoe – BC Court of Appeal.
IRobbins believes that the order nisi should be captured by the convention BC Court of Appeal filing including the requisite Court of Appeal docket number and order to be filed at Supreme Court of Canada all things considered included the bargain made with Bakonyi-Cambridge outside the Chambers of Justice Tysoe – BC Court of Appeal. IRobbins appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is an appeal of Madame Justice Saunders of BC Court of Appeal rejecting an application by IRobbins for an extension for time to file a leave to appeal application relating to the order of foreclosure (ED: Although a regular appeal IS filed). S.C.C. IRobbins v Cambridge 35772 should not continue to maintain orders it made – on the basis of fraud by Bakonyi-Cambridge Mortgage including the procedural fraud by co-conspirators Michael Kleisinger and Chief Justice Chris Hinkson using the latter’s position as Chief Justice to short circuit a hearing against GPR (GPR says 14 days notice) for vexatious proceeding order (without any merit), and to deny any opportunity to obtain a hearing date from Trial Scheduling as directed by Kloegman J.
Indeed, on court transcript of contemptuous illegal hearing of Cambridge dismissal application of Glen P. Robbins application scheduled for April 2, 2018 – Davies J. (the same Justice who ordered GPR be treated as a lawyer at all times) said on the record (not aware that he was dragged into a fraud) – that he wouldn’t have heard from Glen P. Robbins on the basis of the Hinkson CJ order (only). This connects the abuse of process and court procedures by Hinkson CJ working with former law buddy Michael Kleisinger – now Enforcement Officer with LSBC – to IRobbins v Cambridge. This connection is further solidified when Hinkson’s order against Glen P. Robbins is then used to shut down the Supreme Court of Canada case IRobbins v Cambridge (35772) and assist in the cover up of the Cambridge Bakonyi fraud of obtaining crucial orders during the Stay of Execution. (More about former law partners Hinkson/Kleisinger-Law Society of BC later on-(ED: Truly sickening).
The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently dismissed IRobbins application for leave to appeal Saunders J.’s orders but was not made aware of Bakonyi’s obtaining 3 orders in contravention of the Stay of Execution order. Here is how Bakonyi tricked and deceived the Supreme Court of Canada.
2014-02-12 Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), CA order missing, amended notice, memorandum requested. (Amended notice and memorandum rec'd 2014-04-14-17) (Service rec'd 2014-02-26), Completed on: 2014-07-03 – (Ita Robbins) (ED: The Court docket suggests that the original application is not “completed” until July 3, 2014. How can this be when the SCC decision is made June 5, 2014?). 2014-03-20 Letter acknowledging receipt of an incomplete application for leave to appeal and without formal Court of Appeal order 2014-4-16 Correspondence received from, Ita Robbins re: urgent motion 2014-4-16 Motion for a stay of execution, (Book Form), Completed on: 2014-04-22 (ED: IRobbins motion for SCC stay of execution completed within the same period of time the Stay of Execution of Kloegman J. (H130330) is still in force).
Section 66(2) of the Supreme Court Act (Canada) stipulates: “66(2) Where the court appealed from is a court of appeal and execution has already been stayed in the case, the stay of execution continues…until the decision by the Supreme Court.”
The appeal of the Conduct of Sale order is a court of appeal case (H130330) and final order was obtained from Nathan Smith J. (April 24, 2014) in contempt of the stay of execution order of Justice Kloegman dated April 7, 2014. The conduct of sale appeal – made it a matter ‘fit to be tied’ to Section 66(2) because IRobbin’s appeal provided eligibility status to the connecting the BC Supreme Court as a court of appeal with inherent jurisdiction – (‘the court appealed from’) and the Supreme Court of Canada – governed by Section 66(2). Note - once again, IRobbins files motion for stay of execution on April 16, 2014 and completes the Motion (service) on April 22, 2014 one day prior to Bakonyi-Cambridge’s illegal obtaining of (3) orders (April 23, & 24, 2014) from the Smithe Street ‘cell’ of the BC Supreme Court. According to Supreme Court Act section 66(2) a stay of execution should have been placed on the file April 22, 2014. Thousands of dollars were spent by IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins (ED: with the assistance of a lower mainland businessman and associate of Glen P. Robbins) to ensure absolute correct and timely service of documents through this period.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Act (Canada) at subsection 65(4) ‘Modification of Stay of Execution’: “The Court, the court appealed from or a judge of either of those Courts may modify, vary or vacate a stay of execution order imposed by section(1).” Accordingly – the Supreme Court of Canada has opportunity to easily correct the contemptuous conduct of the court processes and breach of sanctity of trust and honesty in office-- Bakonyi-Cambridge Mortgage put upon it, IRobbins, Glen P. Robbins and other parties. The Act demands that a stay of execution order be placed on the dated April 22, 2014 relating to application for leave to appeal the order of the BC Court of Appeal denying an extension of time for filing a leave application. With an amended stay of execution or proceedings dated April 22, 2014 the only other issue is how long the end date of the stay order should be. Should it be June 5, 2014 the date of original decision, or should it the date of the order of the current Chief Justice Wagner (duped himself in his (then) capacity as regular justice of S.C.C.) August 4, 2015, or better yet open ended with no end date. This would mean that the application for leave to Supreme Court of Canada (35772) submitted by IRobbins has not received a fair hearing as the Stay of Execution order was not included with other orders all of which must be provided to the court. IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins had ‘no say’ in the making of any court orders.
The Supreme Court of Canada in conjunction with BC Attorney General could place a stay of proceedings order in lower court/court of appeal with respect to appeal of conduct of sale order (H130330) also for April 22, 2014. 2014-04-17 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), service missing (rec'd 2014-04-25), Completed on: 2014-04-28 (ED: Here is evidence of mens rea intent to defraud Supreme Court of Canada as well as IRobbins. The Cambridge response is filed on April 17, 2014 to satisfy SCC Court Rules for service, but service is not completed until (after) Bakonyi has snuck back into B.C. Court during the Stay of Execution order (and before IRobbins is made aware of what he has done). 2014-04-17 Response to the motion for a stay of execution, Service missing (rec'd 2014-04-25), Completed on: 2014-04-28 (ED: More mens rea intent to deceive court by preparing and filing response to stay motion of IRobbins prior to sneaking into BC Supreme Court April 23 and 24, 2014 – service of the earlier prepared and filed response the day after. The intentional service of the response document without amendment to the response and disclosure of the Stay of Execution order of Kloegman J. is intentional fraud by Bakonyi Cambridge.)
We can see how Bakonyi-Cambridge deceived the Supreme Court of Canada officers and justices who applied expensive government resources --only to end up sanctifying and affirming corruption -------=overwhelming all 3 levels of the Supreme Courts. Cambridge-Bakonyi fails to produce the Stay of Execution order of April 7, 2014 (which Bakonyi had custody of). It/He failed to disclose this material Order to either the applicant or the Court. This action is contemptuous of all 3 Courts and the interests of justice in Canada. The overall administration of justice is held in extreme contempt – and disregard as if IRobbins et al’s Rights to protect their property meant nothing. Bakonyi-Cambridge serves the reply to the application(s) by IRobbins on April 28, 2014 after deceptively obtaining the 3 orders obtained illegally during stay of execution. They had opportunity to amend the original filing at “2014-04-17” (April 17, 2014) and to disclose what their illegal acts of April 23 and 24, 2014 in the reply (defense) served on (April 28, 2014). Instead what Bakonyi-Cambridge did was to decide how justice was going to work in the case with no regard for any of the Courts –particularly the Supreme Court of Canada – and made the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision for it placing the Supreme Court of Canada in contravention of its own operating Statutes.
Which orders should the public believe – if it is this easy to get away with court fraud and contempt? 2014-05-05 Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, (Letter Form), Motion for extension of time missing (rec'd 2014-05-16) submitted to the Court 2014-05-26, Completed on: 2014-05-21 2014-05-05 Reply to motion for a stay of execution, Motion for extension of time missing (rec'd 2014-05-16), submitted to the Court 2014-05-26, Completed on: 2014-05-21 on behalf of the applicants pursuant to the provisions of Rules 32(2) and 18 for an order granting leave to file additional materials as well as for an order adding new parties on the application for leave to appeal; AND HAVING READ the material filed; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motion to add new parties is dismissed without costs. The motions filed pursuant to Rule 32(2) are granted in part without costs. The applicants’ Reply to the response to the Application for leave to appeal and Reply to the response to their motion for a stay of execution shall be submitted to the panel. All other requests made by the applicants to file additional materials are dismissed without costs. Allowed in part, without costs
2014-06-05 Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The (sic) motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA040954, dated January 28, 2014, is dismissed. 2014-07-08 Motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Letter dated July 12, 2014 also received on July 15, 2014 (proof of service missing - received July 15, 2014), Completed on: 2014-07-15 2014-07-21 Reconsideration not accepted for filing, documents returned. (ED: The Registrar Roger Bilodeau rejects the documents). (ED(1): Honeysuckle Lane was taken illegally through Cambridge breach of Stay of Execution order July 14, 2014 Reconsideration discloses unique circumstances of the Court fraud of Cambridge not disclosing activities occurring under Stay of Execution Order – Bakonyi has taken the Hinkson CJ order (vexatious proceedings) and filed it in this matter (35772) resulting in this order which serves to attract judicial order of Warren J. who unwittingly saves Bakonyi and Cambridge’s fraud from being discovered). (ED(2): Bakonyi and Cambridge were served the Reconsideration an opportunity to ‘fess up’ about crooked dealings at BC Supreme Court occurring April 23 & 24, 2014). 2015-02-19 Order by, Wa, UPON APPLICATION by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, dated November 17, 2014, seeking to delay the taxation, to declare certain persons vexatious litigants and to allow the filing of affidavit evidence in support; AND UPON Ita Robbins, Frana Matich, Glen P. Robbins and Veronica Robbins (Infant) seeking to file a Notice of Motion for miscellaneous remedies, received February 2, 2015; AND HAVING READ the material; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT The motion is dismissed. The Notice of Motion is not accepted for filing. (ED(1): This application is in furtherance to Bakonyi-Cambridge filing unrelated documents involving Hinkson CJ’s cooked up vexatious order with former law partner Michael Kleisinger of LSBC April 10, 2014 used to distract SCC – IRobbins files her own vexatious application against Bakonyi whose actions are vexatious to not only her and others but to the SCC court process 35772).
2014-07-08 Motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Letter dated July 12, 2014 also received on July 15, 2014 (proof of service missing - received July 15, 2014), Completed on: 2014-07-15 2014-07-21 Reconsideration not accepted for filing, documents returned. (ED: The Registrar Roger Bilodeau rejects the documents). (ED(1): Honeysuckle Lane was taken illegally through Cambridge breach of Stay of Execution order July 14, 2014 Reconsideration discloses unique circumstances of the Court fraud of Cambridge not disclosing activities occurring under Stay of Execution Order – Bakonyi has taken the Hinkson CJ order (vexatious proceedings) and filed it in this matter (35772) resulting in this order which serves to attract judicial order of Warren J. who unwittingly saves Bakonyi and Cambridge’s fraud from being discovered). (ED(2): Bakonyi and Cambridge were served the Reconsideration an opportunity to ‘fess up’ about crooked dealings at BC Supreme Court occurring April 23 & 24, 2014). 2015-02-19 Order by, Wa, UPON APPLICATION by Ita Robbins and Frana Matich, dated November 17, 2014, seeking to delay the taxation, to declare certain persons vexatious litigants and to allow the filing of affidavit evidence in support; AND UPON Ita Robbins, Frana Matich, Glen P. Robbins and Veronica Robbins (Infant) seeking to file a Notice of Motion for miscellaneous remedies, received February 2, 2015; AND HAVING READ the material; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT The motion is dismissed. The Notice of Motion is not accepted for filing. (ED(1): This application is in furtherance to Bakonyi-Cambridge filing unrelated documents involving Hinkson CJ’s cooked up vexatious order with former law partner Michael Kleisinger of LSBC April 10, 2014 used to distract SCC – IRobbins files her own vexatious application against Bakonyi whose actions are vexatious to not only her and others but to the SCC court process 35772). (ED(2): Cambridge-Bakonyi would have been served with this application with further opportunity to reverse the harm they have caused through their fraudulent and contemptuous conduct). The Notice of Motion is not accepted for filing. The Registrar shall return the materials to the applicants. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT The motion is dismissed. The Notice of Motion is not accepted for filing. The Registrar shall return the materials to the applicants. Dismissed, no order as to costs AND UPON the Registrar referring these matters to a judge pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada; AND HAVING READ the material; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT The motion is dismissed. The Notice of Motion is not accepted for filing. The Registrar shall return the materials to the applicants. Dismissed, no order as to costs
Here are the docket entries relating to submissions provided relating to the Bakonyi-Cambridge malfeasance and contempt as submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada in Google v Equustek (36602) and read by Justice Brown followed by some of those specific submissions. The submissions were extensive and necessary in context to bring the court to position of awareness of the serious contempt and court fraud, non disclosure of material documents under (35772) Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage. 2016-10-28 “Motion for leave to intervene (Book Form), (includes motion to extend time and other motions) (Also includes four volumes: Book of Authorities, Reasons, Affidavits and exhibits (Volumes 1 & 2). Completed on 2016-10-28” – filer: Glen P. Robbins 2016-10-31 “Response to the Motion for leave to intervene” (Letter Form) – filer: Equustek. 2016-11-09 “Order on Motion for leave to intervene by Justice Brown AND THE MATERIAL HAVING BEEN READ.” Justice Brown has been portrayed as Canada’s most Libertarian Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada. He is deemed to know about the actions and conduct of Bakonyi – Cambridge on lower court matter H130330 and SCC matter 35772. Any Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada can make any order it feels just and has the largest scope of authority to correct errors in the court file any moment it wants where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
8. On April 17, 2014 (during the stay of execution period {order by Kloegman J.) of April 7, 2014 including Response to the motion for stay of execution application to the S.C.C. under 35772 (completed for S.C.C. April 28, 2014) during the stay of execution period – Ron Bakonyi legal counsel for Cambridge Mortgage knowingly and willfully defrauded the Supreme Court of Canada by not disclosing the stay of execution. 9. In other filings at the Supreme Court of Canada under 35772 when an opportunity arose for Mr. Bakonyi and his clients' and for the Chief Justices of the Court (armed with the facts) to correct the situation and right the wrong and admit to knowingly filing documents without full disclosure, they failed to do so. 10. On June 14, 2014 under S.C.C. 35772 an Order was made by panel of Judges on Ita Robbins application for stay of execution which was dismissed with no costs. The order nisi which was the subject of the leave application would have been captured by the stay of execution made by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014. The matters of 35772 at S.C.C deeply involving Fenlon J. are an exhibition of poor judgment and I allege indirect participation in criminal activity along with Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis, certainly abuse of judicial powers. These incredibly stupid actions germinated a history of corruption in BC's Superior Courts through the lives of one family and have now as justice (or irony) has made it - infected the Supreme Court of Canada like a Type 4 cancer eating away at credibility of the Canadian Justice system, and ought to be corrected prior to the Google case commencing. Can IRobbins get a fair hearing in any court in Canada? It is an absolutely air tight question?
continued as: Public Interest Alert: Court Filing details of B.C. & Canada Largest Real Estate-Mortgage Broker-MIC, Chartered Bank, Court Services - Money (Mortgage) Laundering: IRobbins vs Cambridge Mortgage-BMO Bank, BC & Canadian gov & Judiciary (2)

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2019