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 (5)
  Apr 24, 2019

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 (5)
When legal counsel obtains 3 Superior Court orders in contempt of a Stay of Execution order – everything is on the table and alive. Accepting this theory however presents a new problem suggesting that the Legal Professions Act under Authority to Practice Law and more specifically subsection 15(5) has equivalency to the Constitution in terms of authority as it conflicts with the judicial discretion related to right of audience matters. On the BC Court of Appeal form a filer must declare whether a matter is constitutional or not. IRobbins declared in her BC Court of Appeal form that the appeal of the Fenlon J. right of audience matter was unconstitutional.
IRobbins had this to say on her Form 25A Leave to Appeal application at Supreme Court of Canada for an extension of time to file leave to appeal on the order nisi (foreclosure) {different than the conventional appeal related to Fenlon J.’s order confusing subsection 15(5) with constitutional right of audience}: Ground 1: “At no time during the process did the Appellant receive a fair hearing… and this from page 71 under Issue #5. IRobbins et al write: “Justice Grauer made a landmark decision in this case separating the efforts of lawyers who are barristers and those of other lawyers who are solicitors as the industry was divided years ago. The first (barrister) relates to matters before a Judge or Justice who has supreme independence, a decision not appealed by the Respondent.”
This is without doubt evidence of IRobbins desire on application for leave at S.C.C. (35772) to connect the order of Fenlon J. concerning Glen P. Robbins right of audience in Cambridge Mortgage (BCSC H130330) the lower court - to this leave application for order seeking an extension of time to file leave to appeal of the order nisi at Supreme Court of Canada to (“the substantive order”) of foreclosure. It is also in direct conflict with LSBC’s crooked enforcement officer – Michael Kleisinger. The order nisi probably would not have been obtained (in any event) or at least – Fenlon J. would have likely ordered a trial date in order to hear the issues. Does any Justice other than Fenlon J. believe subsection 15(5) extends as far as constitutional discretion? Is it in any way reasonable for Fenlon J. to suggest that it does in her case? [ED: Doesn’t it really just appear like Fenlon J. is helping law society members get revenge against Glen P. Robbins including denying IRobbins a fair hearing in order to exact that revenge?]
This makes the Legal Profession Act (BC) not only nearly unreadable as determined by Grauer J., it then places this nearly incomprehensible provincial administrative (State) law in conflict with other provincial statutes including BC Civil Rules, BC Attorney General and Cabinet statutes of authority – which also places the Lieutenant Governor in conflict with the Governor General of Canada responsible for the representing the Queen of England as head of State through the authority of the federal Constitution. It is a constitutional crisis of sorts because it captures all authority in British Columbia including Cabinet and Lieutenant Governor in collective contempt of the Canadian Constitution.
At Page 20 Para (54) Bruce J. writes: “In my view Grauer J.’s interpretation of section 15 of the Act is correct.” At Page 25 Para (71) Bruce J. writes: “The Law Society argues that the meaning of prosecution in S. 15(5) has always been clear” (ED: clear as mud) “The only real dispute has been whether “prosecution” without reward was caught by the legislation.(post Royal Assent)In my view, however, Grauer J., in Robbins, identified ambiguity in the interplay between prohibited acts by a layperson that were accepted if not for a reward and acts that were prohibited absolutely whether or not the layperson was paid…Grauer J. referred to the faulty drafting of….legislation and said at para. 37 of Robbins”:
“The only real dispute has been whether “prosecution” without reward was caught by the legislation.(post Royal Assent)In my view, however, Grauer J., in Robbins, identified ambiguity in the interplay between prohibited acts by a layperson that were accepted if not for a reward and acts that were prohibited absolutely whether or not the layperson was paid…Grauer J. referred to the faulty drafting of….legislation and said at para. 37 of Robbins”: “In my view, that historical distinction is important to the interpretation of these provisions and helps clarify the confusion to which the inelegance of the drafting has given rise. It provides the key to understanding the difference between “appearing as counsel or advocate” and other actions included in the definition of practice of law” if done for a fee, on the one hand, and the reference in section 15(5) to commence, prosecute or defend a proceeding, on the other. The former, particularly including the barristers work of appearing at a hearing as advocate…does not constitute the practice of law if done for free.”
At Page 26 Para (72) Bruce J. writes: “Given Grauer’s comments about the ambiguity in the legislation, it may be understandable that a layperson like Mr. Bryfogle…would not fully appreciate what acts constitute prosecution in the context of s.15(5).” (ED: And for purposes of these unique circumstances – fairly attributable to IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins). The last (finishing) nail in the coffin of subsection 15(5) – subsection 15(4) It is important to consider the fact that the Law Society of BC filed petition seeking orders from Grauer J. on Legal Profession Act Section 15(4) and 15(5). 15(4) prohibits a non lawyer from declaring himself a lawyer as Glen P. Robbins in the Notice of Claim as evidenced from this from Grauer J. at Para (4) of his Reasons for Judgment: “(4) The Law, Society brought this petition seeking first an order permanently prohibiting…Mr. Robbins from representing himself as a lawyer (15(4),…and second, an order permanently prohibiting..Mr. Robbins from commencing, prosecuting or defending a proceeding in any court (15(5)).”
At Para (5) Grauer adds: “At the hearing before me, Mr. Robbins did not seriously contest the Law Society’s entitlement to the first order it sought (15(4))…..(H)e promised that he would not so describe himself again.” At Para (14) Grauer writes: “Mr. Robbins signed the (sic) Notice of Claim as “Lawyer for Plaintiffs”. “It is this action responsible for the Law Societies intervention.”
It is obvious that the 15(4) and 15(5) breaches to the LPA alleged by LSBC are linked to the ‘first’ breach based on subsection 15(4). Glen P. Robbins did quite literally sign his name as “Lawyer for Plaintiffs”. Nothing about subsection 15(5) is as obvious. It is also obvious that Grauer J. made his (first) order predicated on GPR’s promise not to do so again (ED: A bargain GPR has kept with Grauer J. since). Glen P. Robbins promise should also capture subsection 15(5) and Glen P. Robbins’s promise has extended that far. Any injunction from subsection 15(5) at his point is pretty silly/slimy in context of the facts no matter. The second order based on 15(5) is thus most unfair because it appears to punish GPR not once but twice for the same occurrence. The logic of Grauer J.’s full Reasons (including his determination on reserve judgment relating to subsection 15(5)), conspicuously reveal that in order to breach subsection 15(5) one must have performed the actions of a solicitor (which must in all cases invariably also breach subsection 15(4)), .. the actions of a solicitor are always the actions of a member of the Bar and never the actions of a non lawyer (Grauer J.)-----and subsection 15(1) permits any person who is a party to the action – practicing law on their own behalf to perform the job of the solicitor. Who else can be assigned the job? Certainly not the barrister assigned to appear in Court. -however in the same breath Grauer J. agrees that historical consideration of the 1950’s LPA provisions combined lawyers and solicitors as one are equivalent to conditions as at 2011 when he adjudged the case.
Fisher J. and Bruce J.’s affirmation of this conclusion of Grauer J. and arguments/”debate” contradicts the driving force nature of confusing idiotic and ensures any reasonable person viewing it – would affirm this to be true. How is it that Constitutionally appointed Justices of a Provincial Superior Court would believe this was the right thing to do – as this relates to its opposite – the wrong thing to do? The more sensible conclusion would be that subsection 15(5) has no voice in the debate as against the Constitution (for certain) if at all (for near certain). Yet, 15(1) the ‘practice of law’ presents that any person can practice law, some have license to receive compensation for their legal advice, others like Glen P. Robbins, a non lawyer may do everything the lawyer with the license may do but he may not be compensated.
There are exclusions specified in the provisions, they are determined to be “non exhaustive” by Grauer J. There is however no specific reference to the separation in authority presumed (speculated) by the Law Society of BC Mandate and the BC Court Registry ----rolling on up to the Constitutional Court at hearing as a consequence of misfeasance (‘smile and file’) on the part of the BC Court Registry. (ED: The costs of litigation don’t go down as the case proceeds to hearing before a justice). So somewhere between the non exhaustive list of things everyone is able to do under their individual constitutional right to practice law - while exercising their 15(1) provincial rights under LPA to “practice law” – including denoted efforts of preparing documents, negotiating (ED: Which might capture use of rules like Notice to Admit, or other procedural mechanisms for discover – or Notice of Settlement, another document that does not have to be filed with the court).
Grauer J. makes the discovery – he is ‘quasi Magellian’ – stating the Offence of Glen P. as signing the document “Lawyer for Plaintiffs”. Grauer J. says Glen P. Robbins can produce the form, type it up on his computer tell his wife what he is doing, look for feedback as diligently as possible, but he cannot put his name on that document on IRobbins behalf. Again, IRobbins is going to find out about it Notice of Claim filed by Glen P. Robbins, the defendants will have to serve IRobbins personally with all documents including their Statement of Defence (ED: Reply to Notice of Claim). Grauer J. says Glen P. is in conflict of subsection 15(4) referring himself as a lawyer “Lawyer for Plaintiffs” the precise three words (“lawyer”, “for”, “plaintiffs”) plus Glen P. Robbins name and then his signature to that name, Grauer’s first order – ‘let’s make Glen P. off with a promise’ on subsection 15(4). Naturally this pleased Glen P. Robbins, it is a win –he has “Lawyer for Plaintiffs” brand from the Notice of Claim filed under judicial order of promise kept.
We also know that Glen P. Robbins agreed to Consent Orders relating to 15(4) anyhow – the promise bargain GPR made at trial with Grauer J. is merely an extension of this. The decision by the Law Society of BC to pursue section 15(5)(Only) in its amended petition – reveals its intention to rope Glen P. Robbins into the public fray of the courts at any Cost? The Law Society of BC knew when it amended its petition that it was intending to use the same offence twice to get to GPR. This is malicious “prosecution” of a citizen by the State Actor- for certain. The Law Society of BC also did not include the specific subsections of 15(4) and 15(5) with the language from those provisions they did included in the orders it sought under amended petition – an amended filing intended to confuse and deceive Glen P. Robbins. More than this -- and how it uniquely impacts on the original application for leave by GPR in Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC Supreme Court of Canada 35302 (Costs only) is that as we have outlined GPR consents to the order sought by Law Society of BC relating to 15(4) in his Response to Petition.
Yet a month later -Grauer J. (ED: Who had reserved judgment on the 2nd order sought by Law Society of BC) reserved determination of the only remaining order sought by Law Society B.C. remaining - the subject matter of subsection 15(5) the controversial and “ambiguous” (“commence”, “defend” & “prosecute”) and who had obviously already dispensed with the cause of action from which 15(5) arises through his first order to GPR on section 15(4). Remember subsection 15(4) presents a prohibition based on referring to oneself as a lawyer. Case law relating to 15(4)issues, normally reflects Law Societies concern with subsection 15(4) relating to non lawyers advertising publicly or securing payment for services at a discount by referring to themselves as a lawyer, in some cases following efforts to advertise in the gazette for legal services and most often charging fees from unsuspecting (or aware) parties. (ED: A lot worse than anything than Glen P. Robbins did on behalf of his wife IRobbins).
Once fees are charged a non lawyer is always going to come under Law Society scrutiny under application of subsection 15(1) provision of the LPA. Charging illegal fees pursuant to subsection 15(1) is a separate action then the prohibition involved in the application of subsection 15(4). Advertising or otherwise soliciting to the public professional skill as a lawyer when there is no education or regulatory license to support the claim is the action taken with the mens rea of a desire by that ‘cheater’to later obtain compensation from said solicitation efforts. Orders against both actions are necessary to ensure the public interest, lest there be chaos surrounding the profe ssion. Now that folks is what is referred to as (Robbins) Res Judicata ™. Glen P. Robbins believes it is an administrative error on the part of Justice Grauer to make two separate injunction orders pursuant to 15(4) and subsection 15(5) based on precisely the same cause of action to each.
Glen P. Robbins obviously also believes given his consent given in his response to petition and the relationship of 15(4) to 15(5) including the promise made by GPR to Grauer J. relating to his 1st order –relating to 15(4) means he should win the Costs argument and moreover that the whole 15(5) injunction should be set aside. Citing this in light of all the events surrounding it, and in light of its official use for Final Orders – suggests strongly that the poorly written provisions in subsection 15(5) unfairly and inordinately prejudiced IRobbins et al and Glen P. Robbins Legal Rights. GPR also cannot further believe Grauer J. also signs an order for costs against Glen P. Robbins. There is complete disassociation between the events and first order from trial (where most of the court time involved matters of theology as much as anything of substantive law) – and the reserved judgment. Did Grauer J. even write the Judgment the entire judgment? Why has the court record S111171 and Grauer J. decision been removed?
Glen P. Robbins cannot sign his name on any document filed with the court –(ED: The original engagement with court processes) -as Lawyer to a party (ED: IRobbins and another) – - or any other document in the civil process of the court (ED: Under those precise circumstances), ‘unless he or she is also a party’ thereafter as counsel at bar Glen P. Robbins who is practicing law lawfully by preparing forms, doing all of the final editing and most of the general writing conferring with his wife of many decades…but collecting no compensation or benefit. As Grauer J. pointed out Glen P. Robbins “had an interest” in the property located at 1355 Honeysuckle, he resided there. BC Civil Rules for Third Parties, or adding or substituting parties can occur at most points in the civil process of foreclosure or orthodox civil litigation. This means that Glen P. Robbins was by legal inference from the implications of the BC Civil Rules a superior candidate for right of audience in a case involving his wife - -
…and then someone who has taken the illegal action to advertise that he or she is a lawyer in the gazette and then collect monies from someone responding to the fraudulent solicitation. By October 6, 2013 Glen P. Robbins was armed with full Enduring Power of Attorney donated to him by his wife IRobbins – which Enduring Power of Attorney is filed by BC Law Society member – paid for lawyer Ross Davidson. Yet Glen P. Robbins privacy – breached by the Law Society of BC in the 1st instance – and purposefully and with bad intent – along with cases directly related in the aggregate reflect an overall intention to stitch GPR in with others who have done actual bad things in the past, when Glen P. Robbins is as clean as a whistle. (ED: A corporate executive can appear as counsel at trial for that Corporation although the constitutional discretion to reject a right of audience remains at the discretion of the constitutionally appointed provincial superior court justice to deny it).
The presumption is to accept a right of audience if the person appearing is adjudged to be competent and credible and the decision maker is fairly certain the interests of justice will (on balance) be served. The contra assertion is that the right of audience must be denied and there must be some evidence that the public interest or the interests of justice are served by denying a right of audience. Once Grauer J. made his order at trial on 15(4), {both 15(4) and 15(5)} must be presumed to have both been dealt with. Grauer J. ought to have known that charging someone twice for the identical ‘offence’ is unreasonable and unfair given after all that these are injunctions…State prohibitions against the Legal Rights of persons.
Glen P. Robbins provides reasonable appeal. Glen P. Robbins reveals his true mens rea in these cases by appealing only the Costs order in the Law Society matter before Grauer J.. Or was Glen P. Robbins being foolish by acting reasonably? He had already signed a response to petition and an amended response to petition subsequent to an amended petition filed and served against him – to which GPR had agreed to all orders sought – so GPR asked for Double Costs.
The Law Society of BC had been humiliated – by Glen P. Robbins (ED: Not the first or last time), Elizabeth Lyall senior partner with Fasken Martineau law firm ((ED: and code name for U.S. Attorney Lynch-with Fasken Martineau the attorneys for the Boss Power Uranium settlement) ..cut off in mid sentence in order to accommodate Grauer J.’s deliberation over the law of agency he ultimately attached to powers of attorney relative to Glen P. Robbins who in turn was able to proselytize how he appeared that day “in his wife’s shoes” as described by Grauer J., as if Glen P. Robbins were IRobbins and thus he was practicing law by appearing from that more supernatural imaginings as his wife speaking as she intended, a theory not inconsistent with Catholic theology and most particularly the Sacrament of Marriage. (ED: Must have annoyed the *‘others’ in the courtroom…to no end).
(ED: Grauer J. described it as a ‘nice touch’ and ‘ingenious’. Fasken’s Elizabeth Lyall and 2nd Chair Kleisinger were stunned – it was embarrassing for them). Glen P. Robbins did not need to wholeheartedly believe that which he professed to Grauer J., (on theological matters), he merely needed to express the sentiment of his wife IRobbins, who does. Grauer J. asserts Glen P. Robbins was in wife’s shoes in the courtroom, hasn’t his Lordship conceded his own true belief that Glen P. Robbins arguments were as valid or more than the agency argument, given particularly arguments relating to right of audience are procedural (discretionary) and not administrative, unless they are made substantive by filing an application along with affidavit and exhibit evidence?
Because decisions with respect to right of audience involve judicial constitutional discretion – and we see these decisions can be made on a procedural basis with only viva voce submissions without collaborating substantive evidence – the discretional authority presumes the Justice will act constitutionally as she is obligated to pursuant to cashing of her checks and benefits under the Federal Judges Act. (ED: As Transcript evidence reveals in Cambridge - an apparent tendency of justices to permit non lawyers to speak on behalf of others). The discretion in context of both Adair and most particularly Fenlon J.’s dubious behavior on the matter of right of audience would seem to lack authority normally associated with more substantive court applications, hearing of evidence – real access to justice if that discretion were misapplied to the LPA. Is right of audience important when considered in such a primitive fashion as this procedural orgy of misapprehension – was by Fenlon J.? We know in one case an entire year was required to determine right of audience through a substantive decision based on written submissions, affidavit and exhibits. Under “Part Two of Orders Opposed” in Glen P. Robbins March 21, 2011 Response to Petition in his capacity as Respondent in Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins states:
“1. The Respondent opposed the Order Sought by the Petitioner which he asserts is unclear in its objective and specifically the words “be permanently prohibited and enjoined in the prohibit the Petitioner from acting “In Person” which is his legal right to do under the Legal Professions Act.” Under Part Four: LEGAL BASIS in Glen P. Robbins March 21, 2011 Response to Petition GPR writes: “1. The Respondent understands Section 15(4) of the Legal Professions Act, but did not believe he was “falsely representing himself as a lawyer” as the persons he was acting for were his immediately family including his wife…, the core issue of the matter was his family home…and his wife (et al) had provided him with Powers of Attorney.” (ED: Keep in mind GPR consented to the order sought on 15(4) ‘referring to oneself as a lawyer’ – 15(5) the confusing language culprit was not even included in the original petition of LSBC).
The Law Society of BC does not respond to GPR’s Consent Orders relating most specifically to subsection 15(4). In its Amended Petition under BCSC S111171 filed at BC Supreme Court April 8, 2011. Under Claim of the Petitioner Part 1: Order Sought the Law Society of BC writes the following: “1. The Respondent, Glen P. Robbins, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from representing himself as a lawyer.” Now, remember GPR has already stated that he does not understand this language – believing as well that 15(5) is in conflict with 15(1). Moreover, the Law Society of BC has made it worse by not including section 15(4) in the amended petition directly conflating two previously orders sought in the original petition into a whole new order sought without reference to any provision.
Obviously 15(4) is not properly sought in the ‘second petition’. At paragraph 2 of the Amended Petition of LSBC where a line denoting the new or amended feature of the petition states: “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.” So the new amended petition seeks no orders specifically citing statutes and instead appears to purposefully make the amended petition even more confusing – again conflating provisions from subsection 15(1) and 15(5) and only mentioning 15(1) within the entirety of Orders Sought.
It isn’t Glen P. Robbins job to edit or decipher the Legal Profession Act BC or the petition and amended petition of Law Society of BC. In his Amended Response to Petition filed July 26, 2011 Glen P. Robbins in his capacity as Respondent writes at Part One: Orders Consented To: “1. The Respondent agrees henceforth to comply in all instances and at all times with Section 15(4) and all other applicable sections of the Legal Professions Act.” Upon service of the amended response to petition the Law Society of BC only had to provide Glen P. Robbins with the Consent Order – GPR was agreeing to – inclusive of subsection 15(4) subsection 15(5) or any other provisions – GPR wanted the matter resolved – LSBC did not. It is the Law Society which is ‘nuts’, not Glen P. Robbins.
The Fenlon J. procedural application relating to right of audience and most specifically her failure to properly diagnose Grauer J.’s Reasons for her decision in Cambridge was confused in an out of control environment involving legal provisions no one seems to understand. Her rendition of subsection 15(5) is dead wrong, sufficiently so to provoke some concern to judicial watchers in Canada. However the point to be made here is that given what Glen P. Robbins had consented to orders sought, on two occasions – had the Law Society of BC acted faithfully and reasonably in S111171 – neither 15(4) nor 15(5) would have gotten to Grauer J. and likely never been an issue at Cambridge Mortgage (H130330). If as these unique circumstances permit – total reconsideration (and inquiry) of the events – (as it must) occurs, and we also know that if the Court (Cabinet) now sees or ought to see that Glen P. Robbins waved a white flag in his response to petition where 15(4) was the centerpiece of the injunctions sought by the Law Society of BC.
The second amended petition sought 15(5) but never mentions the statute (that no one understands) – that’s dirty pool right there-Judge Grauer let’s GPR on his promise as a gentleman – and GPR has not broken his word. How can any punishment be placed at the feet of Glen P. Robbins – who must fight for his family – his wife and his own honour (ED: Notwithstanding GPR loves to fight anyhow). ‘Bad things’ occurred as a consequence of this chaos – causing massive damage to IRobbins et al and Glen P. Robbins. The academic writings on discretion as provided here: – emphatically details the necessity of the court to properly consider everything including “complaints and appeals” in exercising judicial discretion of any sort.
An order rejecting a right of audience in a case where a person not a party to the action appearing as counsel for those who are parties to the action will reflect on Court Record of that day at that hearing that (in fact) no one appeared. It will not say that Glen P. Robbins (or Edward G. Robinson or any other person) appeared on the record. In IRobbins v Cambridge Ron Bakonyi lawyer for Cambridge Mortgage and Robert Ellis for State Actor BMO Bank prepare and jointly sign “An Order After Application” in connection with Glen P. Robbins being denied right of audience on the basis of Grauer J. order relating to 15(5) at foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013. Glen P. Robbins believes this Order Made After Application document accepted by BC Supreme Court is a purposeful criminal act with intent to deceive the courts with the express purpose of defrauding IRobbins of her home and property and to remove hers, another and Glen P. Robbins Basic Charter Rights including specifically their Legal Rights.
These allegations provided in detail were read by Brown J. of the Supreme Court of Canada. In order for An Order Made After Application to come into being, an actual application on a specially designated Form (differing from a petition or notice of claim) would have to be filed in the court registry and then served upon parties. A Rule 8 Application would need to filed and served separately from the Petition for Foreclosure and would require its own affidavit of evidence in support in order to achieve a substantive determination from the court which would warrant an Order. There is no such application on court record, no affidavit in support only the aforesaid Petition. The only substantive order achieved on May 9, 2013 was by petitioner Cambridge Mortgage receiving the order nisi. The procedural debacle relating to right of audience matters did not attract evidence based arguments and was thus not heard on the merits. It is a fabricated ‘substantive event in BC Superior Court’.
A response to the application would then be required of Glen P. Robbins which would thus make him a party to the action. (ED: Imagine these two lawyers and the Court manipulating the Reasons for Judgment from Justice Grauer to deny IRobbins a fair hearing, including Glen P. Robbins right to seek a right to speak on behalf of his wife and later filing a fraudulent court document (The Order After Application), and having the registry let it flow through up to the justice who signs it with court clerk notes reflecting she made a procedural order and not a substantive order {requiring a separate application altogether). Then, how did this Order Made After Application get accepted for filing by BCGEU directed civil registry employees when under the BC Civil Rules, every draft order submitted to the court for judicial signature must be accompanied by court clerk notes. The civil registry at Vancouver courthouse 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver B.C. would have to open their computers when they review the final orders in draft for presentation to justice for signature. (ED: This occurs because most draft orders are not accepted by the court at point of registry, they are left in a box for registry employees to retrieve from a box designated on the public side of the registry).
Competent vetting and application of BC Judicial Court Directive (2010) by BC Chief Justice Bauman stipulating that all documents must be reviewed for compliance by registry officers the BC Civil Rules for document filing of the draft fraud Order Made After Application submitted to the Court registry May 28 2013 (19 days after hearing date) by Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis acting in concert together – -should demand the registry officer looking for court clerk notes attached to that draft Order Made After Application. There would not be any court clerk notes because an order had already been made on a procedural basis at hearing May 9, 2013. (ED: In this instance the court clerk notes are online at the registry and are not at separate registry desk where court clerk notes are normally obtained). The competent registry officer would then say – ‘hey there is no substantive order to Glen P. Robbins right of audience matter, the concluding notes say it is only a simple foreclosure’ with preceding order on procedural matter.
The only reasoned thing a competent registry officer would then do is fully investigate the true nature of the Order Made After Application, including calling the lawyers of record seeking clarification, or taking the material to the justice affected (in this case Fenlon J.). Why did Fenlon J. not remember this when the draft Order Made After Application came before her for signing? Did she not recognize the style of cause? If she did not and was relying on the delinquent court registry personal to 1st vet the draft order with court clerk notes – what does she intend to do now?
None of these good choices was made by officers at Court Registry at Vancouver Supreme Court registry, located at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver B.C. (or Fenlon J.) though procedures for assuring equal access to justice for all parties were available to them. The simple problem for the BC Court Registry to explain is how they ignored the obvious fact that the draft Order Made After Application by Bakonyi and Ellis had no court clerk notes attached to it, and that the online docket was not properly considered to explain the filing deficiency! For BC Court Registry to not have vetted the fraudulent Order Made After Application is (another) cause of action. The court officer merely had to look at their online screen after typing in the case number, in this instance H130330 to realize the Order Made After Application was a document that should not be accepted for filing.
They would have seen what sleuth Glen P. Robbins had printed off from registry 3 desks over, the actual foreclosure order indicating that no one appeared. Only a petition was filed in H130330, in order to produce a document entitled Order Made After Application, there would first have to actually have been an application. On May 28, 2013 BC Court Registry accepted an Order Made After Application from lawyers Ron Bakonyi (Cambridge Mortgage) and Robert Ellis (BMO Bank) which disclosed no actual application. The preparing of it (mens rea), the signing of it by both lawyers, “Officer of the Court” “Attorney s General” is evidence of a scheme to further defraud both IRobbins et al and Glen P. Robbins. Acceptance of the draft order for filing by BC Court Services is gross negligence on the part of the Government of British Columbia.
Subsequent to IRobbins, FM and Glen P. Robbins filed a regular appeal to the BC Court of Appeal in June 2013. The pleadings in the appeal are related to the matter of Glen P. Robbins being denied a right of audience to at least have an adjournment to hire a lawyer for $4,000 with a solid chance based on case law to win $400,000 for IRobbins – makes good business sense – and further valid appeal of the Order Made After Application (fraud). IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins file a complaint with the Law Society of BC about the filing process at BC Supreme Court, Civil filing registry and the fraudulent Order Made After Application (fraud). The complaint against lawyers follows this line of Escalation to higher authority: First complain to Law Society – if they do not respond than escalate to Ombudsperson and following this the Chief Justice for British Columbia. There is linkage between the Ombudspersons Office and the Chief Justice in this administrative court process. Both superior court chief justices in British Columbia are linked to the BC Attorney General by virtue of Agreement among them.
The BC Attorney General is linked to Cabinet (Executive) which has a constitutional relationship with the Lieutenant Governor. When IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins did not get a response to their complaint to the Law Society of BC they escalated to the Ombudspersons Office. They received this response from Angela Sen Complaints Analyst Ombudsperson Office on August 12, 2013: “We have received a copy of your letter of August 8, 2013…regarding your complaint about the conduct of lawyers. Our office does not have the authority to investigate complaints about lawyers. You may contact this Office again if you have a complaint about one of the authorities within our jurisdiction”
In fact the letter to the Law Society relayed to the Ombudspersons Office was clearly intended to escalate given the Law Society had not responded to the original complaint in 60 days pointing to irregularities in filing of court documents at BC Civil registry. The Notice of Hearing document (April 15, 2013) contains false representations intended to (successfully) deceive employees at BC Civil filing more than happy to help in the deception. The Order Made After Application is (another) false document –to add to the falsified notice of hearing document filed April 15, 2013, and the fail to disclose relevant information in the petition which is filed in the wrong court registry. Does this really constitute access to justice and equal and fair court hearing? The Supreme Court of Canada would have known about this had Bakonyi-Cambridge, LSBC Kleisinger Hinkson CJ not corrupted and confused the SCC process - by not filing or notifying the SCC of the stay of execution order of Kloegman J. – and using the ill gotten vexatious proceeding – order from abuse of office czar Chris Hinkson CJ - and flat out criminality of Michael Kleisinger of LSBCto further bury the corruption.
It resulted in Supreme Court of Canada Registrar Roger Bilodeau carrying the ‘dirty water’ for the legal con artists and obtaining a judicial stay on the proceedings. Here are some of the representations made in that 2015 filing to SCC filed 35772 IRobbins v Cambridge: This is Affidavit of Glen P. Robbins filed in Vancouver Registry September 20, 2015 (sworn by J. Kinsey). It also appears as Exhibit “G” in the SCC documents read by Brown J. in further Affidavit of May 24, 2016.
“1. That on May 31, 2013 Ronald Bakonyi of Vancouver law firm Bakonyi and Company of Vancouver, British Columbia, member of the Law Society of British Columbia, legal counsel of record for the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (“Cambridge”) under this Action No. and Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg, member of the Law Society of British Columbia, legal counsel of record for respondent Bank of Montreal did with malice aforethought and planning cause to be filed a document entitled “Order Made After Application”, ‘Efiled’ under the electronic format provided by the Attorney General of British Columbia and BC Court Services in the 31st of May, 2013 which stipulates the following informing all of what I assert is untrue and in breach of numerous provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.” “2. That the Order Made After Application (“On the Application of the Petitioner, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation”) included herein as Exhibit “A” stipulates the following to be true when it is FALSE. (1) That an Application was made against me (GPR) BEFORE MADAM JUSTICE FENLON on THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 when no such application was ever made before Madam Justice Fenlon or any other justice in the Superior Courts of British Columbia; (2) {x} “coming on for hearing at Vancouver on Thursday, May 9, 2013 and on hearing Ronald A. Bakonyi, Counsel for the Petitioner, Robert Ellis, counsel for the Bank of Montreal, Glen Robbins and no one appearing on behalf of the Petition respondents.” (ED: In context note that this fraudulent document includes Glen Robbins attending when the court clerks notes that because of denial of right of audience (incorrectly or not) by Fenlon J. – on procedural basis – Glen P. Robbins does not appear on May 9, 2013 under H130330 Cambridge v IRobbins).
“3. That this false/forged/fraudulent document denoted at the bottom by both lawyer “officers of the court” describing their signatures as “Signature of Ronald A. Bakonyi, Lawyer for the Petitioner, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation” and Signature of Robert Ellis, Lawyer for the Respondent, Bank of Montreal” features the following statement made on behalf of Madame Justice Fenlon s.98 Constitutionally Appointed Justice for the Province of British Columbia: THIS COURT ORDERS that: “(1) Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from making submissions in this matter on behalf of the Respondents IRobbins et al” (sic) – when this statement in its entirety is (itself) false. Fenlon J. only denied the procedural right of audience – a decision which IRobbins et al and GPR appealed to BC Court of Appeal at petition for foreclosure. This denial of right of audience is subject only to the hearing before Fenlon J. on May 9, 2013. (ED(1): By filing this fraudulent Order Made After Application document Ellis and Bakonyi – Cambridge and BMO were then able to ‘trick’ Master Tokarek at application hearing for conduct of sale order December 2013 into believing that a substantive order had been made concerning GPR’s right to speak). (ED(2): The procedural order of denial of right of audience would have been of no force and effect on the application for conduct of sale).
“4. That I verily believe that it would be impossible for a person about whom an application is made to have (no) standing as standing is required to be party to an application (sic) to an action. If Glen P. Robbins were a party he would have standing under subsection 15(1) of the Legal Profession Act (B.C.).” “8. That this false document filed in Vancouver courthouse of the Supreme Court (sic) is “Digitally signed by Drakos, Zoe DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR.” (ED: If the Deputy District Registrar had done her job properly she would have checked the file docket to see that an order already existed on the matter of the petition and that no substantive application was ever made - and the document should not have been entered by the professionals at the court registry). “9. That nowhere in the PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS OF MAY 9, 2013 LIST on page 155 of the April 30, 2015 submissions—is there any reference to or submissions made in relation to any application or prohibition.” (inferred upon the entire procedure). “15. That I verily believe that Ronald Bakonyi, member of the Law Society of British Columbia, Robert Ellis member of the Law Society of British Columbia and legal counsel for Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation and BMO Bank of Montreal respectively, Lauri Anne Fenlon, Christopher Hinkson, Michael Kleisinger member of the Law Society of British Columbia, the Attorney General of British Columbia, The BC Legislature, BC Court Services including Zoe Drakos and H. Dhinjal of BC Court Services and BCGEU have all directly or indirectly engaged in unlawful conduct conspiracy, breach of public trust and other criminal and civil offences including: (1) Breach of section 361.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; (2) breach of section 366(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, (3) Breach of section 367 of the Criminal Code of Canada; breach of section 368.(1) ..and section 363 of the Criminal Code of Canada including (sic) Chris Hinkson (CJ) under file No, S111171 made March 20, 2015 interrupting a notice of claim BCSC 149(sic)28 including IRobbins – not parties.” (to the underlying application).
Here are the notes drawn from the GPR Google v Equustek Affidavit in support of Intervener application – and specifically Exhibit “B” (ED: Which includes a re recital regarding the order of stay of execution as well as the notes pertaining to the Conduct of Sale application by Cambridge Mortgage December 9, 2013). “I attended to BC Court Services Vancouver Courthouse and desk 210 Monday December 7, 2015 from Master notes”: (6011CR032) File #-VLC H130330 Cambridge Mortgage Investment v IRobbins and another. “2:02:20 PM as follows: VLC-S-H-130330…all documents…END OM Concluded 17 Minutes… “Please note that Mr. Robbins attended and was denied standing to speak.” At 2:02:38 Glen Robbins introduces himself and submits to the Court: “I am the husband…representing my wife by legal power of Enduring attorney registered at Land Title BC).” At 2:12:35…Master Tokarek states: “I am not going to hear from you…you (sic) cannot make submissions.” At 2:14:42…Master Tokarek states: “My hands are tied…this order is clear” (ED: Fraud Order Made After Application concocted by Bakonyi and Ellis for Cambridge and BMO)…”and I can’t do anything about it.”
At 2:14:42…Master Tokarek states: “My hands are tied…this order is clear” (ED: Fraud Order Made After Application concocted by Bakonyi and Ellis for Cambridge and BMO)…”and I can’t do anything about it.” At 2:17:12 Master Tokarek includes in notes: “Write in by hand in the preamble…he (Glen Robbins) was present but not allowed to make submissions.”
Here are the essential court clerk notes from the April 7, 2014 Stay of Execution and adjournment of vacant possession application: At 10:43:37 Justice Kloegman states: “The Application (of Cambridge) should wait until the hearing of the appeal” (ED: of Master Tokarek’s order of December 9th, 2013 or the BC Court of Appeal matter relating to right of audience (Fenlon J.). At 10:50:47 Justice Kloegman states: “So I would make the order stay of execution…until April 30, 2014.” At 11:07:34 Justice Kloegman states: “Neither party can file anything further without leave of the court.” So the order obtained by Bakonyi and Cambridge to dismiss Glen P. Robbins application to be added as a party from Justice Barry Davies April 23, 2014 was illegal not only because it was contemptuous of as well as in breach of the stay of execution order of Justice Kloegman but because it was in conflict with the order that “neither party could (sic) file anything further without leave of the court”.
And so the order obtained by Bakonyi and Cambridge to dismiss IRobbins and another appeal of the conduct of sale, the specifically referenced order of Justice Kloegman – was dismissed the following day by Nathan Smith J. This action and the granting of the dismissal order by Smith J. are actions contemptuous and in breach of the Kloegman J. order of April 7, 2014 – it was also in conflict with the additional order that “neither party could (sic) file anything without leave of the court.” And so the order allowing the vacant possession order April 24, 2014 – again – ‘oh boy’ – its Nathan Smith J– only this order he tells to Bakonyi to saunter up to his desk and stealthily slips Bakonyi a signed vacant possession order. This is done in contempt and breach of the stay of execution order of Justice Kloegman.
Order of Chris Hinkson CJ under S111171 (ED: now changed to docket 1310 – don’t know why or anything about this) At 10:19:47 AM March 20, 2014 Chief Hinkson says to Glen P. Robbins “I am not going to hear your application…that is adjourned generally”…@ 10:21:47 AM (ED: GPR’s application is also his response to his application so Hinkson CJ did not hear GPR’s defence). So Hinkson technically held a trial where he acknowledges he didn’t hear from Glen P. Robbins defence document (application response) or his procesution document – his own application. At 10:32:30 “Chief Justice expresses concern that the vexatious procedure of the Law Society of BC against Glen Robbins is dependent on cases in which Glen Robbins is defending himself.” At 10:54:31 “Kleisinger for LSBC on small claims evidence being used against GPR informs Hinkson CJ that no costs awards have been made against Glen P. Robbins except for the matter against the Law Society of BC” – (ED: Strong evidence of many Costs awards are a must necessity to make a vexatious procedure order stick).
The nexus of causal culpability between Bakonyi and Ellis for Cambridge Mortgage and BMO Bank (respectively) and the BC Government involves conjunctive responsibility for miscarriage of justice which leaves a huge imprint on IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins Charter Rights. The Chartered Banks in Canada provide significant capital to Mortgage Investment Corporations (“MIC’s”) which the Income Tax Act permits exemption on corporate taxes paid. The State Actor banks are in financial league across Canada. Is it in the public’s interest to determine if Canada’s chartered banks are also in league with the fraud? The BC Court Registry is within the Ombudspersons jurisdiction as are Law Society complaints against lawyers where the Law Society has not properly responded in timely fashion to a complaint against one or more of its members.
This aspect of invoking the Ombudspersons Office serves to acknowledge that so called Independent Voice – as having greater ultimate authority over the court registry and document filing there using British Columbia approved forms for filing, meaning the Ombudspersons Office has jurisdiction over the Order Made After Application for which there is no application – or for any of the Orders filed by Ron Bakonyi in April 2014 after obtaining these orders on ex parte basis during a stay of execution order. Cabinet can order the Ombudspersons Office to correct the court record and ensure reversal of orders.
The Original (Criminal) Agreement between Peet and Cowan Financial Services (aka) Cambridge Mortgage Invest Corporation & IRobbins and another. Facts, Law and Arguments relating to Canada Interest/Criminal Interest and implications to this case:
Re: Subject – {Carole James Finance Minister, David Eby Attorney General} on Institutional Misfeasance & Malfeasance (Finance), Lieutenant Governor in Council (British Columbia), Interest Rate Criminal Loans, Institutional money laundering (Land Title), Fraud, Bad Faith, Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility). Please make special note of the RCMP involvement in illegal activity. Working Notes prior to provision of Offer to Judgment. (With comments through “ED” 1st made available April 1, 2018). Designed by Glen P. Robbins (affidavit in sum to be presented by IRobbins personally) on behalf of IRobbins.
Begin here: Federal Interest Act – Sections 2, 4 6 & 8: Interest is (ED: alleged to be) governed by the Federal Government of Canada by authority of the Canadian Constitution. IRobbins ® v Cambridge ® (CM) showcases a series of events (“legal occurrences”) in the Province of British Columbia (and in Ottawa), whereby both superior levels of government, and both superior courts fail to consider Constitution of Canada, the rule of law, or to ‘regulate’ Interest Rates despite the legislation and constitutional authority and obligation to do so. Every effort made by IRobbins to resolve these malicious actions by Cambridge Mortgage was ignored or rebuked by that company, its principal owners, the Governments of British Columbia and Canada and one way or another by every court in the country up the Supreme Court of Canada under 35772 and also impacting at that same court in Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC 35302. IRobbins v Cambridge produces a in depth analysis of breathtaking arrogance and high level criminality, irresponsibility and abuse of high office from BC to Ottawa, which IRobbins advocate representative Glen P. Robbins (GPR) asserts ought to attract some prison time for judges, lawyers and commercial lenders.
The evidence is gathered over many years, with each act of malfeasance worse than the next culminating in Cambridge obtaining three orders from BC Supreme Court Justices during a period of stay of execution. A number of BC Justices knowingly participated in the scheme. The case can be made ultimately that individuals of high office in both Canada & British Columbia took these actions intentionally, maliciously, and cruelly. GPR takes the position that IRobbins v Cambridge is the most significant civil damages case in Canadian history where grounds relating to Charter breaches and access to justice are concerned.
Much bigger and more significant than the Arar ($11,000,000) or the Boss Uranium settlement ($32,000,000) or “Special Entitlement” paid to Basi Virk convicted criminals in BC Rail who received ($7,000,000) for pleading guilty to save trial time after 9 years of stalled applications (ED: waiting for 2010 Olympics to end likely). All of these “unique settlement circumstances” can be readily seen in any transparent way to be in the public interest particularly if we assign Glen P. Robbins RSR polling potential to create jobs and change lives, and must be considered without equivocation as being against the public interest and fundamentally in opposition to the Charter Rights of IRobbins et al.
In IRobbins v Cambridge – every effort is made by IRobbins to follow the Rule of Law (and the social rule of decency), while every effort is made by State actors Cambridge Mortgage (self regulating like lawyers), Judges, Lawyers, BC Government, Federal Government and Supreme Court of Canada (“S.C.C.”) (indirectly) to contravene the law and the rules with a focused ambition of destroying Glen P. Robbins and to ruin his wife IRobbins financially if that is what is necessary to cause his injury. …and to steal her property with court orders taken in contempt of existing judicial orders, and thereafter using the RCMP to effect the taking of the house including the unlawful detention of GPR. Imagine, the State police being employed to illegally take a citizens property.
In our previous worksheet(s) sent to decision makers and other of April 2018, submitted by email for legal ‘awareness’ (BC Court of Appeal) we compared the $34,000,000 that IRobbins et al are seeking (specific property causation represented at near $3,000,000) (ED: before application of other heads of damage) is fair and reasonable given the BC Boss Uranium settlement obtained for shareholders by Fasken Martineau law firm, which firm also wrote the BC Liberal Government Law Reform Report. (ED: IRobbins attempted to obtain a copy of shareholders in Boss but was rebuked by its lawyers at Fasken Martineau law offices). In any event, the Boss settlement at present value and Interest of 5% is $42,000,000. Without any doubt presented in a ‘competent’ U.S. Court IRobbins would easily claim US$150,000,000 total damages. The $34,000,000 Offer to Judgment for IRobbins et al in context of facts is reasonable.
It is not hyperbole in IRobbins case to suggest the actions of persons in high authority in BC and Canada have suborned and enabled actions which but for the exception of the element of mass murder, is equivalent to claims against Nazi’s made by victims of stolen property over decades. Canada’s human rights extends to many abroad is a perpetual show of our ‘niceness’, but fails to address simple basic common law, access to justice with its own citizens. The State and the Courts cannot figure out, or worse, only apply the law and authority how and when it/they see fit (ED: Or convenient).
Why would the United States and its longstanding history of pro property rights entrust Canada on any security council when Canada and British Columbia cannot resolve an obvious case involving significant damages with its own citizens, in this case, a very hard working woman, IRobbins where the State has viciously stomped over her Legal Rights –. Why would the United States do business with a country that fudges on Interest Rates, or true representations of economic condition including inflation and Interest Rates and prefers to cause harm to its own citizens to cover it up? Competence and confidence in Interest Rates is more important to Canadians.
Section 2 says any loan can be made in any manner so long as the total cost of borrowing does not exceed a Criminal Rate of Annual Percentage Rate (Interest) @ 60 percent limit Annual Percentage Rate. (A simple interest application is not sufficient to test for A.P.R.). Section 6 relates to mortgages alone. (ED: A loan agreement is not in and of itself a mortgage, it remains a loan only until such time as it is registered). It does not become a lawful mortgage until this condition is legally affected by said registration.
The mortgage registration as between IRobbins and (Cambridge) is a separate and distinct legal contract from the original illegal agreement with Peet and Cowan, but because both events involve the same agreement and the same two owners benefiting - and since Interest Rates engage the Federal jurisdiction of the (Ibid) Interest Act cited herein, they are the one and same agreement but with two separate and distinct measures of illegality to them. Even when criminal allegations are taken out of the analysis, the loan agreement with Peet and Cowan Financial Services – would administratively engage a separate and distinct section of the Interest Act. Peet and Cowan swindled IRobbins into a criminal agreement – of 98.7% A.P.R – on its face it is null and void.
Folding this (criminal) agreement into another company for filing in public registry is taking an agreement under BC Government Logo involving breach of Criminal Code is a course of action with mens rea intent to commit fraud and use Land Title Office to achieve it. The mortgage agreement is the worse of the two crimes as it involves the aforementioned intent as well as engaging the State Actor Land Title to aid and abet the fraud. The Competition Act of Canada has also been breached, the agency responsible contacted, and that agency failed to investigate the circumstances of the case despite being provided with easy to read evidence of the fraud(s). The Cambridge loan name is already on the Canadian Company watch list at 2001 – from Competition Bureau and elsewhere.
(ED(1): In this case the original loan with IRobbins & PCFS and the mortgage registration with Cambridge although nothing material in terms of $$ changed and they are in effect identical agreements, they are separate actions undertaken by two different legal entities owned by the same two men. In other words twocriminal actions relating to two different companies involving one mortgage). (ED(2): This folks is precisely where provincial and federal jurisdiction engages, in property. A woman's property of near a quarter century. Every piece, with hundreds of thousands in equity, orders obtained in stay of execution, in contempt of justice’s order. And then using RCMP to enforce these illegal orders. (ED(3): The BC Justice Madame Kloegman who made the stay of execution order April 7, 2014 coincidentally retires the same day IRobbins home is illegally stolen along with property).
Section 4: Section 4 relates to Default Rate occurs on the contract in question. (In these cases where the Default Rate occurs, the lender usually loses big). A contract that no reasonable person is able to decipher attracts a default rate of interest of 5 percent. Cases decided by Section 4 of the Interest Act seldom if ever benefit the lender. Supreme Court of Canada decision on the subject ties Section 8 to Section 2, and rejects any Interest above ‘that attracted by arrears’. Section 6 only permits mortgages to be calculated annually or semi annually but never (sic) in advance.
Both the original loan agreement between Peet & Cowan Financial Services (“PCFS”) & IRobbins and the mortgage registration agreement between IRobbins and Cambridge are the same agreement provided by the two same men who own both incorporated self regulating companies. This contravenes Federal law under the Competition Act. This situation is made worse on the basis that in 2001 the Federal Government placed a Federal warning against Cambridge lenders. (ED: The Competition Bureau was informed of the malfeasance in 2015. It contacted IRobbins saying that FICOM was in charge of administering the provisions of the Competition Act and Mortgage Brokers, unawares that Mortgage Brokers had broken away from FICOM). “2. Except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact on any contract or agreement…any rate of interest or discount that is agreed on.”
Criminal Code of Canada 347: The Criminal Code of Canada asserts that any loan with interest over 60% A.P.R is illegal. It involves 2 step process – NO person can enter into such an agreement, and NO person can collect $$ under such an agreement.
The Original Loan: As you can see the original loan agreement between Peet & Cowan Financial Services (PCFS) and I. Robbins (IR) displays on front page of loan agreement an 8.9% Interest Rate on an existing $298,000 mortgage. (ED(1): The entire criminal prosecution by GPR filed at S.C.C. (Google v Equustek Docket: 36602) available for review @ S.C.C. records, features affidavit with all material documents for viewing including these referenced. Court clerks notes supporting stay of execution {for later remember all orders at court must be accompanied by court clerks notes} Bear in mind this filing has been read by S.C.C. Justice Brown (BC Alberta) and clearly and without any doubt eviscerates the credibility of the Province of British Columbia and Government of Canada). (ED(2): Both Justice Brown and the S.C.C. are well aware of the facts of the crime). On page 4 buried (ED: like a body on Criminal Minds) in the bottom of this loan agreement is the Credit Disclosure provision mandated by BC Law, revealing an Annual Percentage Rate (“A.P.R.”) of 98.7%. The final total amount required to be borrowed is $392,000. (ED(1): Anyone see any problems emerging?) (ED(2): The owners (IR) presented over $50,000 in annual earnings. PCFS offers 1st mortgage loans in advertisement at around 3%. IRobbins has had foreclosure (BMO) so her credit is hurt, but she has enormous equity (hundreds of thousands). The 5%, seems plausible, but then IRobbins is told because the mortgage broker fees are being paid to the lender to accommodate the requirements of the loan, the rate must be stipulated at 8.9%. The next thing IRobbins doesn’t know is that the loan agreement she has been sucked into is against the law, the Criminal Code of Canada @ 98.7%). (ED(3): Hidden way-way back page in the fine print).
On its face the Peet & Cowan/IRobbins loan agreement is not a lawful contract, it is a criminal rate of interest. Not only is there sufficient evidence to suggest the agreement is in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is an obviously a (1) deceptive, and (2) unconscionable loan agreement under BC Civil Laws. (ED: Nexus of federal provincial jurisdiction at point of BC Land Title, and as well at point of Criminal Code of Canada, Competition Act, & BC Civil Law & Rules). The loan is contemptuous of people and the community as it manifested through IRobbins v Cambridge. It screams for a big bang in damage award or Special Entitlement given the absolute harm caused.
Annual Percentage Rate: Since A.P.R. is the predicate legal expression of the Government of Canada Interest Act, (the same one they represent as having constants at G7 meetings) than the consumer would rely on the 98.7% and not the 8.9%. As it is, only the 98.7% A.P.R. is included in the Credit Disclosure of the loan agreement between Peet & Cowan Financial Services & IRobbins. Given there are no adjustments to this loan agreement when Peet & Cowan Financial Services shifts the loan agreement to Cambridge Mortgage for filing at Land Title Office…. Then the actual mortgage registration of Cambridge Mortgage must be the precise A.P.R. IRobbins had with Cambridge Mortgage - 98.7%.
The difference between simple interest in common law contract and loan agreements seeking the protection of enforcement of Land Title Office using Annual Rate Percentage are the charging of fees, including legal fees and other administration fees etc which form part of APR Interest. The PCFS loan agreement is a common law agreement however the APR is Federal jurisdiction (Interest Act Canada) as well as capturing both senior levels of State authority. (ED(1): BC law requires permission of the borrower to amend the contract for mortgage registration). (ED(2): IRobbins was compelled under duress to pay double insurance for earthquake insurance. Wawanesa and her agent of many years refused to respond to IRobbins. Ugggly!) IRobbins would not want to be supporting criminal conduct by lenders. How would she benefit? (ED(3): Even if IRobbins were aware of the 98.7% A.P.R. and of the potential benefits it posed for her, Section 2 and Criminal Code of Canada Section 347 make it impossible for either party to enter into the loan agreement in the first place, and as indicated, in the 2nd place NO $$ can be received).
IRobbins de facto now ‘owns’ her house outright at this point against Peet & Cowan (PCFS). Once the Peet and Cowan contract collapses under its criminal and deceptive weight then the Cambridge Mortgage registration collapses as well. The Cambridge mortgage registration can collapse under its own weight of non compliance by declaring a false rate of interest on the mortgage registration. No Independent Legal Advice at point of closing of loan agreement between PCFS/IRobbins and or between Cambridge/IRobbins. IRobbins lawyer Michael Rathbone refuses to sign the statement of Independent Legal Advice. (ED: IRobbins moves into additional heads of damages at this point of constructive/intentional fraud at point of Cambridge filing mortgage registration at Land Title Office).
Section 2 of the Canada Interest Act demands that no person enter into any legal contract where Criminal Interest is involved. PCFS entered into the contract. They wrote the contract on BC Government LOGO. The State is sanctioning criminal loan agreements. IRobbins entered into an illegal contract but she did not benefit. A more powerful State Actor ‘self regulating’ had far more power than IRobbins and had no difficulty using the Courts to take advantage of her. The State had an obligation to protect her and BC Consumer legislation provided for the Finance Minister to work with the BC Attorney General to defend IRobbins (and Glen P. Robbins) interests as members of the public against the predations of lenders, BC Law Society members, ‘high’ up officials including BC Justices (Chief Justices). The State of British Columbia recognized under the Canadian Constitution as a Province has its fingerprints all over this crime.
(ED: Besides, the PCFS/IRobbins shows that the agreement valid or not was null and void by virtue of the stipulations of demand by the lender PCFS, and the further provisions PCFS demanded that if the agreement were not signed the contract automatically became null and void. The contract was signed a day after the expiration date, there is no letter from PCFS changing the agreement to extend its time expiration). The mortgage registration of PCFS illegal contract with IRobbins is made through PCFS (Company “A”) ‘sister company’ ------ Cambridge (“CM”) @ Land Title Office New Westminster. There are no changes to the elements of the contract or any of the mathematics – CM is PCFS and PCFS is CM. (ED: See provisions of Federal Competition Act disallowing this activity).
The CM/PCFS dual company illegal contract Disclosed for legal purposes at 98.7% A.P.R. under original agreement must also be 98.7%. It is not possible that it could be either 8.9% or 9.2% reported at Land Title. (ED: These 2 %’s were filed in Federal Box for National Disclosure of Interest under the Canada Interest Act). The Cambridge Mortgage registration of mortgage against IRobbins home (of nearly a quarter century) is a criminal loan, in violation of the Criminal Code. It isn’t 8.9% or even 9.2%. This is now at minimum constructive fraud and more likely intentional fraud at this point. The loan agreement/mortgage registration with PCFS/CM must be deemed a nullity, and IRobbins home at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, and all of her belongings, heirlooms, collectibles household furniture, stamp collection (evidence in support) (total insured hundreds of thousands) made for her by her father over an 80 year period.

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