Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Vol - 8 the end affidavit witnessed by J Kinsey Notary Public Burnaby -per Jody Wilson Raybould, criminal submissions to BC Prosecution Services: R Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Cambridge Mortg, Peet & Cowa, BMO Bank, justice(s) Fenlon & Hinkson -
Originally June 3, 2016  Oct 05, 2017

686. That under Part 2: Factual Basis at paragraph 3 “Since September 3, 2010 Mr. Robbins has referred to himself as a “lawyer”, “legal counsel” and “legal representative” & at para 4. “Mr. Robbins is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.”
687. That under Part 3: Legal Basis at paragraphs 1,2,3 &4 the Law Society of BC claims that I have breached section 15(4) (falsely representing myself as lawyer (the one time under BCSC 106413), [cited and confirmed in Reasons for Judgment of Mister Justice Grauer October 3, 2011]). as well as Sections 85(1)(a), 85(5) or 85(6) (85(6) (specifically denotes language “reason to believe that there has been or will be a contravention of the Legal Profession Act”.
688. That the originating petition of February 24, 2011 is signed by “Elizabeth B Lyall Dated: February 24, 2011”.
689. That my original Response to Petition filed March 21, 2011 served on the “Petitioner's Solicitor” Elizabeth Lyall that day features Part One: Orders Consented To: @ 1. “The Respondent agrees henceforth to comply in all instances and at all times with Section 15(4), 85(1) (dealing with contravention of section 15 (which includes section 15(5) (N.B. I did not understand the confusing language in subsection 15(5) later amended by Royal Assent of BC Government retroactive to 1998).”
690. That at Part Two: Orders Opposed: I confirm my confusion with the language in the Legal Profession Act @ para 1. “The Respondent opposes the Order Sought by the Petitioner which he asserts is unclear in its objective and specifically with the words “be permanently prohibited and enjoined from representing himself as a lawyer, which the Petitioner fears may be wrongly interpreted to prohibit the Petitioner from acting “In Person” which is his legal right to do under the Legal Profession Act.”
691. That I make reference to the fact that at the time this action was undertaken and heard that section 15(1)(h) [later amended out through removal], permitted me to “practice law” so long as I was not being paid for it.
692. That there is no question that Grauer J. openly mocked the poorly written nature of the Legal Profession Act prompting LSBC, the BC Attorney General and BC Legislature through Royal Assent to amend the language involved in this matter involving me, and following the publication of the outcome of this hearing by Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun, I believe the Law Society of BC was angry and resentful at me and also at Justice Christopher Grauer.
693. That I verily believe the Law Society of BC ought to have compensated me for my assisting them with their difficulties in writing legislation that was coherent.
694. That I verily believe my Response to Petition had an affect on Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau opposing counsel for the Law Society of BC as she filed an Amended Petition to the Court on April 8, 2011 and under amended Claim of the Petitioner (not properly amended) and Part 1: Order Sought indicates amendment at para 2. “The Respondent, Glen P. Robbins except as permitted by section 15(1) of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 be permanently prohibited and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting, or defending a proceeding in any court, in his own name or in the name of another person.” That I note that subsection 15 (5) is not specifically referenced.
695. That I make further note with emphasis that the provisions of subsection 15(5) were amended by Royal Assent at or about May 12, 2012 and that this and other relevant amendments were undertaken by the Law Society of BC & BC Attorney General without informing me of them, when they knew or ought to know that these might have affected how I was dealing with my appeals to the BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.
696. That I note under Part 2: Factual Basis @ para 1 the petitioner writes: “The Petitioner is a corporation whose membership includes all person called to the Bar of British Columbia and admitted as solicitors of the Supreme Court and who hold a Practicing Certificate for the current year.”
697. That I note in Part 2 Factual Basis @ page 2 of Amended Petition para 4 the Petitioner writes as amended “In 2010 and 2011 Mr. Robbins commenced, prosecuted and defended proceedings in the name of his wife, Ita Robbins, and his mother in law, Frana Matich.” That I verily believe this writing of pleadings of Elizabeth Lyall reflects a view of the Law Society of British Columbia consistent with the Reasons of Justice Grauer where he examines and gives reasons of his interpretation of section 15 (5) (prior to amendments by Royal Assent) and concludes that in fact I did breach section 15(5) but only under BCSC 106413 Robbins v BMO Bank of Montreal in commencing the action and defending an application of BMO.
698. That I note the amended petition of the Law Society of BC is also signed by Elizabeth Lyall of law firm Fasken Martineau.
699. That I verily believe since my case under BCSC S111171 that no outside counsel has been used to represent the Law Society of BC in matters relating to compliance.
700. That I verily believe that Elizabeth Lyall, senior partner with Fasken Martineau and having specific interest in providing her services in relation to lawyer members insurance matters elected to take the case on behalf of the law society to promote her own financial interests in this regard, on the basis of supporting and upholding the value of the members capacity to charge exorbitant average hourly fees and unconscionable contingency fees in 'probably most' personal injury cases.
701. That I verily believe that the outcome of Reasons of Grauer J. is consistent with my admission under response to petition and response to amended petition that 106413 correctly identified as the once and only time that I ever breached Section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
702. That I (again) assert that none of the section 80 series injunctions sought in both petition and amended petitions of the Law Society of BC were attained.
703. That I (again) assert the letter of January 30, 2014 from Michael Kleisinger compliance officer with Law Society of British Columbia who writes at paragraph 3 “We understand you are delivering documents to various parties, including Ms. Lyall QC, who is no longer counsel on this matter. Please forward your correspondence with respect to this matter to the writer, who is counsel on this matter.”
704. That this statement affirms my correspondence to Elizabeth Lyall including the documentation of filings of applications aka petitions aka some type of notice of claim declared as BCSC S111(-)71 or BCSC S111171 and to letters from Michael Kleisinger to me referencing Justice Grauer preceding these filings, which were intended for Elizabeth Lyall's edification and awareness and the binding affect the Grauer J orders had upon her with the express intention of offering her the opportunity to mitigate what I believed to be further damages caused to me, and to my wife and mother in law, that I further verily believe that both she and Michael Kleisinger had to know or ought to have known existing commencing at least by May 9, 2013.
705. That on May 9th, 2013 at hearing of submissions in relation to the non substantive right of audience before Justice Fenlon (conveniently confused as being related to section 15(5)) under BCSC H130330 the Grauer order referenced was not longer valid in its then form as language “in the persons own name or in the name of another person, except as permitted in section 15 (1) had been taken out of the provision.”
706. That I verily believe that Elizabeth Lyall QC counsel for Fasken Martineau was the operating mind behind having arranging to have her former employee Lauri Ann Fenlon operating under colour of law as a constitutional justice of the BC Supreme Court (now the BC Court of Appeal) to preside over the hearing of foreclosure petition May 9, 2013 under H130330 as her reputation had to have suffered badly following the poor performance by her and Michael Kleisinger before Grauer J.
707. That I spoke with my nephew Ryan Dalziel partner at law firm Bull, Housser and Tupper following the Vancouver Sun article by Ian Mulgrew at a family birthday for my mother Rita, and he indicated at that time there was plenty of conversation at professional meetings and seminars following this case.
708. That I verily believe that Elizabeth Lyall was motivated to take this action (not take any action), (malfeasance/misfeasance/nonfeasance) on the basis that had another justice without a clear conflict of bias as Fenlon J. had in the matter, heard the matter of H130330 they would have put the matter over to Trial Scheduling where the matters of the unconscionable criminal loan between Peet and Cowan Financial Services of 98.7% was subsequently represented as a mortgage of 8.9% through the mechanism of a second company, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation at Land Title and Survey Company, and this matter would have become public record and subsequently published at
709. That having spoken to numerous persons in charge of BC Court registries around the province and at some length in relation to problems in dealing with court procedures and court administrative processes, and in speaking with an analyst at the BC Attorney General, that when I suggested that one solution to problems of shortage of adjudicators in the system, dealing with too many applications, with view to the solution emulating Federal Court and Supreme Court systems where personal attendance is not always required, I was told that that the filing of the response of petition under H130330 by Ita Robbins & Frana Matich ought to have been sufficient defence to the petition without any attendance by them to the court.
710. That in September 2013 I wrote to the BC Attorney General in regard to BCSC 012600 which action I commenced May 8, 2001. The Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were served on the BC Attorney General and my MLA Christy Clark immediately following filing. No statement of defence was or has ever been filed. My letter warned that I intended to seek Default Order/Judgment.
711. The Cause of Action related to a matter before the BCHRT where my lawyer John Motiuk failed under process of investigation certificate and declaration not to practice law by the Law Society of BC, failed to inform me of his problems with the Law Society, his mental illness problems, and as a consequence failed to properly follow instructions by not providing submissions on an issue of joinder in a matter where my company and I were respondents to complaints. Following this failure to file submission Mr. Motiuk then unilaterally dealt with matters at the BCHRT while not authorized to practice law. As a consequence of Mr. Motiuk's actions I was not able to properly mount a defence did not attend to hearing and from the hearing, a Tribunal Member did ultimately cause to include erroneous statements made by a complainant that I was “pedophile” which defamatory statement was listed online by Google for a period of three (3) years before being 'meta tagged' by the BC Attorney General Geoff Plant.
712. John Motiuk's lawyer throughout the period in question was Chris Hinkson QC of Guild Yule professional law firm (1999-2000).
713. I verily believe that Chris Hinkson took the actions he did in conjunction with Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC, in relation to the activities under unlawful court procedures and trial under S111171 in order to assist Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Lauri Fenlon and their mutual participation in abuse of power, abuse of office, willful fraud and document forgery, breach of administration of justice, by enjoining themselves in separate process of mutual participation in abuse of power, abuse of office, willful fraud and breach of administration of justice in a concerted effort to protect the interests of a fraudulent scheme of criminal or unconscionable loans which the 'Robbins matter' would have exposed, which would have also exposed and made the Law Society of BC vulnerable to class action lawsuit and believed their nefarious actions would be sufficient to ruin me and my family or order to exact revenge against me.
714. That the appeal of conduct of sale order made December 2013 before Master Tokarek under BCSC H130330 dismissed by ex parte hearing April 24, 2014 while under a stay order (Kloegman J., April 7, 2014) the presiding justice on April 24, 2014 was not privy to, has yet to be provided with a legitimate hearing and legally remains outstanding.
715. That the order for sale of conduct was obtained in significant part on the basis of a forged Order Made After Application made May 31, 2013.
716. That as indicated Fenlon J. made order at or about December 7, 2014 for sale of property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC (our home) for an amount about 50% of its current value on the basis of vacant possession illegally obtained, and further made a second order for vacant possession at this (ex parte) hearing.
717. That neither the 1st or 2nd vacant possession orders are valid unless the conduct of sale order is valid, which I verily believe it cannot be in light of the stay order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014.
718. That I provide again the notes from Justice Kloegman of April 7, 2014 application for vacant possession (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 30th, 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 the 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 stay of execution until April 30th, 2014” to mean...(here is the expert's linguistic interpretation... “Here is what is going on....Kloegman says application should 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.”)
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 proceedings through the order of a court.” “A stay is a 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.. Courts will grant a stay in a case when it is necessary to secure the rights of a party.” “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.”
721. In the matter of petition for foreclosure under BCSC H130330 at the time of order for stay of execution made by Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014 there are two orders in place. The first is an order Nisi (Foreclosure) which is under Supreme Court of Canada docket 35772 (and is referenced by Kloegman J. at hearing) and order for conduct of sale. The stay of execution order would thus be intended to stay the order Nisi and the appeal of conduct of sale the subsequent order in succession of normal procedure.
722. That I verily believe the order of Madame Justice Kloegman for stay of execution was intended to apply to both the order Nisi and the order for conduct of sale (obtained through the criminal fraud of Order Made After Application filed May 31, 2013.
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 is 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.”
724. That I verily believe the administration of justice and credibility of the court and civil justice system in British Columbia demand that every order made under H130330 and that every order made by Christopher Hinkson in relation to me and BCSC S111171, 106413 be rescinded immediately by Mandamus order – following a full criminal investigation.
725. That I provide an analysis of Martin's Criminal Code in conjunction with events denoted in this Affidavit of some 37 pages (affixed hereto as Exhibit “ ”).
726. That I provide Reasons of Judgment of Mister Justice Grauer under Supreme Court of British Columbia Citation: The Law Society of B.C. v Robbins, 2011 BCSC 1310 Docket: S111171; a print out of the docket from Supreme Court of Canada in relation to 35302, the Supreme Court of Canada appeal of the Costs portion of the Grauer decision under S111171 & Reasons for Judgment of Honourable Justice Fisher under Citation: The Law Society of British Columbia v Parsons, 2015 BCSC 712, Docket: S151214 date 2015/05/06 (affirming the Grauer J. decision at page 3 on right of audience) and making decision of Fenlon J. of May 9, 2013 under H130330 (relating to the Grauer J.) order an obvious mistake) (attached hereto as Exhibit “ ”).
727. That I attach Proceedings in Chambers of May 09, 2015 under BCSC H130330 (before Madame Justice Fenlon) (Note no exhibits entered), as well as email correspondence between myself (my wife Ita Robbins) and correspondence to Karen Wallace “Chief, ATIP Operations relating to information being sought as to vetting process for Justice Fenlon (against weak resume as lawyer), as well as correspondence relating to ongoing process (now in mediation) to determine payments made to lawyers and law firms in British Columbia over threshold minimum amounts per year over past 6 years (investigation of potential conflicts) (attached hereto as Exhibit “ “).
728. Letter from The Law Society of British Columbia, Michael Kleisinger Staff Lawyer, Unauthorized Practice to me dated September 20, 2013 and Notice of Taxation relating to SCC court file 35302 September 20th, 2013; Bill of Costs of the Law Society of British Columbia (unsigned no date); Letter from The Law Society of British Columbia, Michael Kleisinger Staff Lawyer, Unauthorized Practice of November 13, 2013 Re: Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins and matter of Costs Owing including reference to Justice Grauer order (BCSC S111171) (no reference to Section 18 BC Supreme Court Act Vexatious Proceedings); Letter of January 6, 2014 Michael Kleisinger to me relating to Unauthorized Practice of Law as this relates to Reasons for Judgment and Order(s) of Justice Grauer and threat of contempt for “additional pleadings” and filing affidavit in Court of Appeal Action No. CA 40954 (where I am a respondent) in appeal filed by my wife in her name and by her mother in law in her name, (please note no comment about vexatious proceedings); Letter of January 24, 2014 Notice of Application and Affidavit (rule 8 interlocutory application, not commencement petition) (first time reference of vexatious proceeding (litigant) following threats under Grauer J. (completely different subject matter than Grauer J. which involves provisions of LPA specifically section 15(5)), again signed by same person at LSBC Michael Kleisinger; Letter of January 30, 2014 seeking an application response (reaffirming this is a rule 8 interlocutory effort), with acknowledgment that Michael Kleisinger is aware I have sent these documents to Elizabeth Lyall of professional law firm Fasken Martineau (who was opposing counsel before Grauer J.); Letters from Law Society of British Columbia & Michael Kleisinger dated January 30, 2014 & February 5th, 2014 & February 18, 2014 (again no matter of responding to rule 8 application); Letter from Law Society of British Columbia of February 24, 2014 acknowledging sending of previous letters where matter is referred to as application from interlocutory (from final and conclusive of Grauer J. under BCSC S111171 – to SCC 35302), from Michael Kleisinger including para 3 acknowledging the nature of the “application” including further acknowledgment from rule 8 that I am out of time to file response to application; Letter of March 4, 2014 reflecting ex parte Order of Chief Justice Chris Hinkson under Reference S11171 (take notice that the LSBC has removed on number “1” from docket number, Letter of March 14, 2014 affirming that Hinkson CJ ex parte approved new case from interlocutory application and not appropriate PETITION; Print out from BC Online File Summary denoting filings as Applications under BCSC S111171 (the Grauer J. decision S111171 final and conclusive Supreme Court of Canada 35302); Notice of Application time stamped filed Jan 24, 2014 Vancouver Supreme Court Scheduling (Trial Division) under S111171 (note Orders Sought Final Order pursuant to section 18 of Supreme Court Act (new subject matter);, Requisition filed Feb 13, 2014 where Law Society of BC has now referred to itself as “Petitioner” where there is no actual petition for orders being sought; the original Petition to the Court dealing with subject matters pertaining to Legal Profession Act filed Feb 24 2011; Response to Petition filed by me March 21, 2011; Amended Petition to the Court filed Apr 8, 2011 by LSBC; (Law Society of B.C. Petition and Amended Petition signed by Elizabeth Lyall), Amended Response to Petition filed by me July 26, 2011, Order Made After Application of Mr. Justice Grauer under BSCS S111171 time stamped Jan 11, 2012 signed by court registrar and Michael Kleisinger; Requisition to change hearing date of section 18 application (new subject matter for final orders) from March 3, 2014 to March 21, 2014 including Order of Chief Justice Hinkson referring to Michael Kleisinger & Law Society of BC as petitioner (“the laundering”); Application Response of myself filed March 18, 2014 including Part 1 with notice to court registry regarding fraudulent court process; Order of Chief Justice Hinkson made April 10, 2014 under BCSC S111171 (the Grauer decision) referencing the Law Society of BC as petitioner (when it is not a petition) and myself as respondent (when I am not a respondent); Legal Profession Act section 3 “Object and Duty of Law Society of BC; Practice Direction of Masters (Jurisdiction) 2013/03/25 PD-42; Letter of April 21, 2016 (Notice) to various authorities; Letter of March 11, 2016 to parties involved in taking of property from home; Letter and communication between myself and LSBC pertaining to legal matters circa 1998-2000 involving BCHRT matter where I was labeled (defamed) as pedophile based on lawyer failure to follow instructions and ongoing pursuit of boxes of investigative material in possession of LSBC involving then lawyer Chris Hinkson QC and my lawyer John Motiuk (attached hereto as Exhibit “ ”).
729. That I resubmit affidavit made by me from October 20, 2015 (text only) and September 15, 2015 (attached hereto as Exhibit “ “)
SWORN BEFORE ME AT BURNABY, B.C. MAY , 2016 _______________________________________ Jacqueline Kinsey _______________________________________ A Notary Public in and for the Province of Glen Robbins British Columbia, A Commissioner for taking Affidavits for British Columbia

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