Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
3 times lucky Liberals with Small Claims Judge Marion Bennett, the Murdered & Missing Women (federal) & Minister Wilson Raybould (Liberal MP/Vancouver BC) in Port Coquitlam, home of the Picton Murders.
  May 01, 2017

Communicated at < less than 40 pages; gmail, fax & Registered Mail (to come)
Glen P. Robbins Burnaby, British Columbia
Jody Wilson Raybould Justice Minister and Attorney General Canada K1A OA6 Fax: 1 613 992 1460
Constituency Office: 1245 West Broadway (Main Office) Suite 104, Vancouver, BC VGH 1G7 Fax: 604 717 1144
Dear Mademoiselle:
Re: 3 times lucky Liberals with Small Claims Judge Marion Bennett, the Murdered & Missing Women (federal) & Minister Wilson Raybould (Liberal MP/Vancouver BC) in Port Coquitlam, home of the Picton Murders.
With regard to the above caption, I believe it is merited given the issues involving the murdered prostitutes at the Pig Farm in Port Coquitlam, BC for which Robert Picton was convicted and connection in subject matter to the Murdered and Missing Women's Inquiry.
I am writing with regard to a bill for collection I am receiving from Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's tax collection) in connection with judgment order from the Port Coquitlam small claims court under action PCBC # 11342 which you can view for free under BC Court Services Online. The style of cause at small claims court is The Attorney General of Canada v Glen P. Robbins.
This is important because it links the order of the Small Claims Court of the Province of British Columbia to collection through Canada Revenue Agency (the federal agency), linking the Ministry of Justice, British Columbia to the Ministry of Justice, Canada.
This small claims action was undertaken September 14, 2000 as a debt collection from judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “Superior Court”) made October 31, 2000 from order of Madame Justice Koenigsberg, (the justice with the Nazi husband described in the Province newspaper and elsewhere), who was able to evade paying foreign jurisdiction order of the State of California of an estimated $250,000 judgment from that State, despite removing her husband's name from registry of their Vancouver Mansion.
So far so good.
[You may or may not recall, my firm published material which showed that then Chief Justice Brenner enabled the fraud of Koenigsberg. Shortly after the publication of my material, the Chief Justice resigned, surprising many. He died not long afterward, and despite speculation there is no published report he died, sadly, at his own hand].
Student loans were taken by myself in 1978 and 1982 in contract with a Canadian Bank. The total of the loans appears in documents with the Bank and the Government of Canada to be in the area of $4,000 to $6,000. The loans were guaranteed by The Government of Canada.
At or about 1986, the Government of Canada, the guarantor to the Bank that made the original student loan obtained default judgment (following sub service app and order) against me from the BC Supreme Court.
This court order obtained without any defence mounted neglected to consider the 1978 loan (the original loan). This loan was made with a different Chartered Bank than the 1982 loan although both were then guaranteed by the Government of Canada. The Crown Proceedings Act (sic) on the 1978 loan would have expired. The rationale for filing an action in the BC Supreme Court would thus appear premature. Nevertheless.
On March 7, 2000 the Government of Canada sought and obtained a second order on the same subject matter of student loan outside the ten year limitation for commencing a second action in that court.
The facts as they relate to the second order of the BCSC
I indicated my intention to the BC lawyers representing the Government of Canada my intention to fight this second BC Supreme Court order, and filed and served a statement of defence. (There is evidence of this in the files you should access immediately).
The lawyer for the Government of Canada, Department of Justice (BC), member of the BC Law Society, unilaterally set October 31, 2000 to hear the matter before Koenigsberg J. The record shows I could not attend on that date, (a date provided with plenty of warning). The lawyer refused another date for hearing the matter.
I knew the lawyer had to offer 3 other hearing dates within a reasonable time, I had indicated I was available anytime soon thereafter the October 31, 2000. I knew I had to be given a hearing. I knew if he/she were granted the order showing up without me, when I had filed defence, and under the circumstances of my Notice would get found out through any Enforcement process.
None came, I forgot about it, believing the Government of Canada had come to its senses on the whole of the deal.
The lawyer obtained a second default judgment (appearing alone) on October 31. 2000.
Costs were awarded in both cases, the latter as I said made by Koenigsberg J. No effort was made in either circumstance to employ the provisions of the Court Order Enforcement Act.
The 3rd action in BC Small Claims Court
In September 2010 just 6 weeks before the expiration of the second ten year period post judgment from the order of Justice Koenigsberg, and nearly a quarter of century following the 1st BC Supreme Court order, and nearly 40 years after the first loan was made, the Attorney General of Canada filed a debt collection in the small claims court at Port Coquitlam, BC.
There is no circumstance where this document ought to have been accepted for filing by the registry given the clear reference in the filed document at that registry, to the debt being connected to the BC Supreme Court judgment of October 2000.
The registry had to have known the small claims court could not be used to re establish a debt which had traveled through the BC Supreme Court (now) twice, information clearly on the face of the original document commencing the 'debt collection'.
[(In fact, the eventual order obtained from small claims court is nearly two years after the expiration of the second ten year collection cycle) or twenty two years in total. Even if the filing of the “debt” at Small Claims Court – (not a fresh litigation), were considered (with some elastic thinking) an extension of the process of court order enforcement process. That process would have expired in five or six weeks anyhow. In context responding to this minute angle of rationale (more like rationalizing) all this would have amounted to is an effort at collection in the final six weeks of possible lawful collection)].
This is a point where we must put ourselves in these lawyers from private practice in the Province of British Columbia representing the Department of Justice (Ottawa) and Government of Canada (now in its 150th year). Why did they take the 3rd court action to small claims? What person on the Government of Canada payroll gave the lawyers the instruction, and why wouldn't the BC lawyers have rejected the case? How many more like this are out there?
Here is what I believe:
Its starting to smell like class action, or was this all about getting for Canada's Jesse James?
{I have already provided you, with the working copy of my complaint to BC Ombudsperson, to be filed next week, on a whole series of irregularities in BC Supreme Court involving Robbins v Cambridge (H130330), filing irregularities, jurisdiction problems with filing, orders that never occurred being filed, phony orders being used to achieve subsequent orders, obtain (3) orders during a stay of execution, using BC connections to file fraudulent material to the Supreme Court of Canada, Law Society Officer and BC Supreme Court Justices, including the Chief Justice Chris Hinkson operating outside their authority with apparent malice – and this to add on top of it).
*If necessary this will be followed with an Application to the Supreme Court of Canada with affidavit including this letter to you.
I should be at the very top of your list of problem solving because I am able to showcase (where no other lawyer has done) a step by step process of abuse of court processes, lawyer fraud, off the wall abuse of position in two justices (the LSBC has 8 boxes identified where then lawyer Chris Hinkson (2000) representing my lawyer (who is bi polar and manic – and I didn't know or wasn't told) at BCHRT matter – where crucial applications were not undertaken by my lawyer John Motiuk despite my instruction to do so.
I have delivered to you notes of the upcoming Ombudspersons complaint on the matter of the massive BC Government of Canada, Government of British Columbia, BC Law Society, BC Real Estate, BC Mortgage Brokers & more specifically Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage, (Supreme Court of Canada) a matter in conjunction with Robbins v Law Society of BC, and Law Society of BC v Robbins.
[It is unprecedented (and few have researched more law than I in the past few years). I will leave 'no stone unturned' or 'political corpse' in my wake in achieving justice for my wife and family].
You have now been fixed firmly in a position where you play high and might government, you will drown in your own lack of credibility here or elsewhere, because no one other who you pay will trust you. The entire justice system in Canada falls to its knees on the basis that nearly every important Justice in our history has cited the worst thing that can occur is abuse of court process.
When top actors in that system not only permit the abuse, but aid it along and make no effort to disguise this well, the problems in the system can be theorized so deep that only the public resolve of a matter like this can clear the air, particularly after the legal matters involving BC Government Employees.
In this case, not only are BC Government Employees working at courthouse registry, either negligent or worse, working for the Deputy Attorney General, signatory to the 3 Amigos Manifesto involving the BCAG, and 3 Chief Justices, it is the only case where lawyers are able to go after an ordinary citizen, his wife and family – without any regard for their well being.
As you are aware, Ron Bakonyi a BC lawyer obtained 3 orders from the BC Supreme Court during a period of stay of execution. (At the end of that execution period Chief Justice Hinkson's Manager in Trial Scheduling refused to permit me to book a trial-just warning ya').
Mr. Bakonyi then used communication facilities within the Supreme Court of Canada to file documents in Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage (S.C.C.) where he failed to disclose what he had done (no relation to the Royals that I am aware of)
A clear obstruction of justice. Three of our courts top judges were not made aware of this and made a judgment to dismiss appeal of matters relating to the original order nisi based on a non disclosure by counsel of crucial orders from the lower court.
This is a 9 11 don't you think Minister?
I have stitched together an evidence trail of legal malpractice from the judicial top to the court registry bottom, in most instances with malice aforethought that I believe is the Canadian Justice systems “Brockovich”.
The other reason this should be at the top of your list is that in documenting these steps – these legal cases as I have, directly in the courts, in the public realm, with a level of unprecedented stealth in connecting up every level of court to core actions of fraud on the parts of many legal actors – is directly connected to matters which ultimately will rear their ugly head as problems in Canada's real estate market fester, crack and given the high level of personal debt per capita, particularly in British Columbia-- and the sub prime problem (yet told only through published inference) which I have documented as sure as Anne Frank documented her horrible experience.
Working Theory
There's significant fraud and bad faith among the people at the top – to a couple of people – with so much malice, including this case – that the only conclusion any right thinking person can arrive that is was undertaken in concert or through some communicated cooperation.
I understand the usual response from authority is – the old accusation of fraud, I am well past that go to defence. This time it is well documented and you have seen it, become a witness.
The longer its left the easier it is to say our justice system has no credibility and is unable to repair gross mistakes made, seeking only to ignore the obvious.
Marion Bennett's Small Claims Judgment on Glen P. Robbins application to dismiss for jurisdiction.
In the small claims matter I filed application for dismissal on jurisdiction basis and so forth. The Attorney General of Canada asserted that the small claims court was a foreign jurisdiction (like Florida) from the order of the BC Supreme Court.
At hearing of the application Marion Bennett dismissed my application and indicated that jurisdiction had nothing to do with it, that she had authority to follow the BC Supreme Court and THEN made further order that no information preceding the 2000 order of Koenigsberg could be mentioned at trial.
In other words, in removing any and all other procedures by Executive Order of her Court, that all other persons are entitled to in that court, and specifically ordering that the 1st judgment from the BC Supreme Court, sometime in 1990 or earlier (the ten years actually may have lapsed from the 1st judgment to the 2nd).
This is not a matter for appeal, as there is no appeal from an application and even in judgment an appeal to the BC Supreme Court demands onerous conditions relating to putting money into court and high court fees.
I filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada, (that's right, that's how thorough I am) on the matter of the small claims application by me for dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that they could not accept an appeal from the order of the application before Bennett, where she used her office to herd an injustice into the win column for “The Swamp” as they now say.
The story here likely better befits a Mandamus order request from the S.C.C.
An order for judgment 3.5 times the 2000 amount and 8 times the amount from the BC Supreme Court order was obtained from small claims.
This court fraud undertaken with extreme bad faith by Judge Marion Bennett, specifically her order that no information be permitted at small claims trial (small claims for cryin out loud), along with the fact that she had to know the small claims court had no jurisdiction (abuse of process) in the first instance, reflects the length Buller Bennett or Bennett or whatever name she goes by now, went to ensure I was defrauded of property, quite clearly abusing her office as Administrative Judge and BC Liberal Government employee in the process.
It is my current position that Bennett took these steps to ingratiate herself with the Attorney General of Canada and curry favour for herself and her career, and as the french say Voila!- with no regard for me, including her appointment being to (federal) Chair the Murdered and Missing Women (whatever it is)
I have written you, your predecessor Peter McKay, the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court, the Attorney General Anton and others with the evidence, it isn't difficult stuff, despite the seriousness of the allegation I am making.
The Law:
“......, Part 7 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act... “is intended to control the collection practices of everyone (including lawyers). Section 114 sets out the “general prohibition on harassment.”
Harassment is defined as (inter alia), “the use of undue, excessive or unreasonable pressure”.
Civil Rules 3-3(3)) on default judgment, “confers all the rights and remedies concomitant with a regularly obtained judgment, and “is subject to being set aside on one of two grounds.”
“If the defendant can establish that there was a...defect in proceedings (such as default service) then the defendant can have the judgment set aside as a matter of right at any time.” [Hudson's Bay Co v Kallweit (1976) 2 B.C.L.R. 92].
Rule 52(11)(a).... “limits the powers of a court on an application in chambers to the granting or referring of the relief claimed in whole or in part or the disclosing of any question arising on the application.”
“..(A)ny question arising on the application” must have reference to questions raised by the specific form of the notice of motion and cannot have reference to questions which go substantially beyond the motion.”
Beyond the obvious scam perpetrated by Marion Bennett and the BC Provincial Court upon me – the failure to admit to the mistake and take the punishment, reflects the nature of the scam artist and bully currently being appointed to judge ships. It is truly offensive. Yet, the technical aspect of the law rises everywhere.
Here, my application was about jurisdiction. The judge could have let this flow through to trial for pre trial motion in a worst case scenario because its small claims and many justices are not well versed in matters of litigation (criminal court), but not only did Bennett ignore the law on jurisdiction, and ignore the Limitation provisions, but went far beyond the framework of the motion itself centered on jurisdiction to add other orders further denying me procedures under the Rules, but makes further order to have evidence excluded from Trial of the true history of both BC Supreme Court actions, to delude the subsequent judge into making the mistake of believing the court was only dealing with one order in 2000.
All in Bennett should be prosecuted for this.
Rule 2(1) provides that “Unless the court otherwise orders, a failure to comply with these rules shall be treated as an irregularity.”
In Craig v Runseen (1943) “Lord Greene dealt with a case (sic) “found” that a declaration of an order to be a “nullity” when the person affected by it is entitled ex debitio justitae.”
This enables an appropriate officer of the court on their own to set judgments aside without application
“It seems to me that the court in its inherent jurisdiction can set aside its own order..” “The word “action” is defined in section 1 to include” 'any proceeding in a court and any exercise of a 'self help' remedy', and “local judgment” is defined to include, inter alia, a judgment of the Supreme Court (no small claims court).”
“In 1974 Report on Limitation, the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia considered whether to retain an effective right of “revival” of a judgment by obtaining a new judgment. The Commissioner's Ontario counterpart had recommended in 1969 in its Report on Limitation Actions that the right be abolished.”
“While the Commission considered actions on a judgment or order should be made subject to a longer period than other actions, it also concluded that there should be a point at which a judgment debtor should be free from the threat of further action...” (20 year period).
The British Columbia Commission did not agree. It reasoned that: “the right of a judgment creditor to bring fresh proceedings on his judgment should be retained. A prohibition against that right would not be a limitation but rather the abolition of a substantial cause of action.”
“Accordingly, the new statutory regime adopted in British Columbia in 1975 reduced the limitation on actions on judgments for the payment of money from 20 to ten years but retained the reference, in what was then the Limitations Act, S.B.C., c.37 to actions on existing judgment.”
“The case law since 1975 has developed in accordance with the Law Reform Commission's recommendations and the previous law...”. “The leading decision in this province is Young v Younge [1985] B.C.J. No. 2342. 62 B.C.L.R. 154 (C.A.).”
“There the plaintiffs had obtained judgment for $70,000 against the defendant in 1973. Then, six days before the expiration of the ten year limitation period, they state a second action, on the original judgment, and were granted summary judgment under R. 18. The defendant appealed.”
'The appeal court 'per Esson J.A noted that the action was “somewhat unusual'. Esson indicated he was “not fond of actions being brought here upon a judgment in an earlier action.”
*So here, a judge of Esson J.A.'s stature finds the second judgment to be unusual and doesn't like it. What would His Honour think of this small claims maneuver?
“Esson J.A. Referred to a decision of Van der Hoop in Toore v Braich [1979] B.C.J. No. 1122, 12 B.C.L.R. 303 (S.C.) where that judge had granted judgment, but expressed reservation concerning...piling “judgment after judgment with costs on the original judgment”.
“Van der Hoop L.J.S.C. suggested that “it must be determined in each case whether the new action does constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.” @ (304).
The Court in Young v Younge agree with Van der Hoop that “there must be 'limits upon the right of the plaintiff to rest his judgment and to extend the time for pursuing the defendant by issuing new Writs.”
“Essentially, that is to be determined by deciding whether there has been an abuse of process (At 156-7).”
“Esson J.A also referred to an earlier decision of Farris C.J.S.C. in Holme v Holme [1947] 1 W.W.R 633, 1 d.l.r. 361 (BCSC), who in turn had referred to Muirhead v Neuman [1931} 1 w.w.r. 589 [1931] 2 D.L.R. 519 (Alta C.A.). In the latter case, Walsh C.J.A for a panel of five had said the law was “perfectly clear” that an action is maintained on a judgment of a court of record for sum certain in money.”
However, the Chief Justice in Holme v Holme described this as “shocking” “and found himself unable to follow” (the decision).
Melnick J. stated that in an action or a judgment the plaintiff must provide' “some evidence to demonstrate that the action is not an abuse of process of the court citing 'Toore v Braich' and Young v Younge. 'Melnick described it as “problematic” the fact that the plaintiffs had failed to provide any evidence of steps they had taken to enforce judgment.'
'In the English Court of Appeal in Bennett v Bank of Scotland, [2009] e.w.c.a. CIV. 988, [2004] B.P.I.R. 1122”:
“ cannot be an abuse of process per se to commence a second action with the object of pressing one's the particular circumstances of the case, render that unjustifiable. As Patten J points (sic) s. 24(1) {of the Limitation Act, 1980} Parliament has permitted a party with the benefit of an earlier judgment to commence proceedings on that judgment any time within six years of the judgment being obtained.”
(*once can see from this historical case that Parliament had the limitation at six years, this would be consistent with the federal Crown – Proceedings Act in terms of limitation periods).
Clearly the Department of Justice has known there were two cases filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in respect of this subject matter, the student loan, a court order obtained ex parte in 1990 in BC Supreme Court as well as a second order (Koenigsberg) obtained in October 2000.
The Department of Justice Canada knew or ought to have known the law based on case history from English law, Commission history in Ontario and British Columbia, the federal Crown-Proceedings Act (lesser threshold of six years consistent with English case law) had disagreements about granting a second ten year order, it can be done, but there should be evidence of good faith efforts to enforce judgment. There is NO such evidence here.
This clear abuse of office by a Provincial Judge becomes your problem when Marion Bennett becomes Chair of the Murdered and Missing Women's Panel. Obviously a promotion (a benefit to be sure).
This is a federal promotion by a federal Liberal government, obviously to a Liberal support in Marion Bennett, who was also head of the Aboriginal Court of BC (though a declared aboriginal Marion Bennett doesn't appear aboriginal without a few very good looks). If she was promoted by your government on merit than how would you explain her conduct in my case?
The BC Attorney General and many involved in the Courts including a couple (particularly) in the judiciary are clearly behaving badly.
I have provided you with a real nice breakdown of a mortgage fraud, lawyer fraud, court fraud, judge's in dubious position – its Canada's sub prime story and the business implicated at the heart of the deal is named Cambridge. I have actually sent the Cambridge case to England's Privy Council who wrote back saying they had no say in Canadian legal matters. Too bad it seems.
Bennett might have done a bad job, might have received a phone call from the AG's office, maybe even the Chief of the Provincial Court, and intended to sabotage my legal rights, she might have been having a bad day and made a bad decision, or doesn't understand the law, any of those claims are on the table, until her exclusion of the first BC Supreme Court order heading for trial. This was a deliberate action and she ought not be permitted to be employed by government anywhere in the judicial system as a consequence. Glen P. Robbins

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