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 (6)
  Apr 27, 2019

Commentary
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 (6).
..must by law be returned to as she was before the permitted by the BC and Federal government under Harper and Clark.
The responsibility lies at the feet of two levels of senior government to ensure that this occurs, OR IRobbins is properly otherwise compensated.
To date ‘readers’ with a mandate to pursue the public interest - have seen work notes for compensation to IRobbins and 3 other women seeking upwards of $8,000,000 in general damages. (ED: Which may be mitigated if persons are charged with criminal offences which also opens the victims of crime possibility) provided in early April 2018. The notes advanced (herein) for awareness to decision makers reflects IRobbins as the property owner seeking more than $2,000,000 for lost property prior to damage assessment for non pecuniary and aggravated damages, lost rents, costs, & interest and thereafter for an assessment of Punitive Damages.
The Detail of Bad Intent:
As the reader can see (ED: Particularly from the S.C.C. filing under Google) the contract terms are stipulated for 8.9% (cumulative monthly). IRobbins believed she was paying in the ordinary method used by conventional banking (annually, semi annually not in advance). (ED: Just imagine the skullduggery and contempt it requires to behave like this in civilized society). IRobbins believed she was (over) paying at 5% interest calculated in the conventional way (Section 6 of Federal Interest Act), but accepted 8.9% on the basis it was needed to accommodate the lender fees as suggested by the broker generally accepted at 1% per $100,000 of loan. IRobbins inclusive of mortgage and overdue taxes needs $320,000 from the new loan. How does a 9% (rounded) rate of Interest on a first mortgage (ED: Now grown from $200,000 to $298,000) with a half million in equity – attract a final bill of $392,000 under the PCFS criminal unconscionable loan? ($100,000 for 1 year?)
The Original Loan made by Peet & Cowan Financial to IRobbins does not add up to 5 percent or even 8.9% or even 9.2% (8.9% & 9.2% are the two amounts on mortgage registration). In simple interest terms, the PCFS loan to IRobbins appears to be about 16% to 20% (18% avg.) Interest or calculated at nearly double in equivalence A.P.R. necessary for legal, but 98.7% as actuarial is nearly double. But simple interest is not Legal Interest – which in mortgage registrations must be disclosed under the Federal Interest Act as an Annual Percentage Rate. (ED: The scam process here in predatory loan is to tell the borrower over the telephone they may have to pay a little more than the going rate even with healthy equity. The little bit more starts at 5% then incrementally becomes 8.9% (to accommodate brokerage fees) than escalates to charge card interest rates which when legally expressed as A.P.R. become criminal).
The BC Mortgage Broker became the Lotto Winner (just like BC Casinos) for opportunity being able to issue equities and also loan mortgages hidden away from oversight either federally or provincially. (ED: Reference Cambridge bank federal Warning 2001). What ‘Crooked Mind’ ® thought this would work out in the mid to long run? What ‘Crooked Minds’ believes letting it continue is in the public interest?
Overlay of Sections 2, 4, 6 & 8 of Canada Interest Act: So, given what we know of sections 2, 4, 6 of the Canada Interest Act, we know Section 2 makes any loan lawful so long as it doesn’t exceed 60%. We also know under Credit Disclosure the A.P.R. in the PCFS IRobbins loan agreement is 98.7%. It’s not OK, and the Registrar of BC Mortgage Brokers calling this a clerical error in 2014 is further evidence of the untouchable arrogance of these State Actors. The very best this agreement could offer PCFS in January 2012 the date of the original loan agreement would be the 5% default rate of Section 4.
The loan agreement(s) between PCFS/CM & IRobbins do not possess Independent Legal Advice for IR. On its own this would render an agreement null & void. Overall, when BC’s Lieutenant Governor in Council convenes a quorum of IRobbins peers, $34,000,000 ($34M) in damages for IRobbins and others appears to be the absolutely correct decision. (ED(1): Because PCFS and Cambridge and their lawyers are crooks - - it isn’t enough to produce a confusing, illegal & unconscionable agreement through ‘Company A’ PCFS, they decide this common law fraud isn’t enough, it now becomes necessary to use a second company – ‘Company B’ Cambridge – to register this criminal agreement at Land Title Office in New Westminster). (ED(2): Bear in mind that the original loan agreement with PCFS on day 1 of process constitutes the common law agreement, while the 2nd agreement registered at Land Title constitutes an entirely separate agreement).
Had PCFS Directors left the loan agreement with IRobbins alone, any collection of overdue amounts would be left to credit and collections or to the Courts. Any court action would have to proceed by statement of claim, a different process than employed in foreclosure of mortgage which is done by petition. The fact that the ‘rinsing’ of loan agreement between Peet & Cowan to Cambridge resulted in a public registration gives the lender a better advantage than if it was not, on the basis of particularized court rules accommodating petitions for foreclosure. In a fair and full hearing under either Court action commencement process – Notice of Claim or Petition, PCFS and Cambridge would forfeit any monies loaned by any measure of case precedent across the country. (ED(1): An appeal of any Supreme Court decision under Statement of Claim can be appealed by right, this is not the case for appeals of foreclosure, where permission to appeal must be obtained). (ED(2): This becomes more & more significant as the con job against IRobbins deepens and attracts participation of BC Government under Attorney General & Finance Ministries, Law Society of BC, Judges and Registry of both levels of BC Superior Courts. Even the Lieutenant Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Council are on the hook).
In terms of Damages including Punitive Damages, PCFS has already acted in bad faith with IRobbins with the original Peet and Cowan loan. The exercise of using the ‘credibility’ of Law Society members to register criminal and deceptive mortgages at Land Title (ED: who like BC Court Services prefers not to check documents filed with that Office) involves a type of Made in Canada RICO (U.S.) effort in planning. (ED: At this point in time, IRobbins believes the cause of action and damages are proved on the basis of the replacement of house and property to IR and for additional damages, which triggers need to mitigate damage on all parties. The Record IRobbins will appear as pure while her oppressors appear as tainted and irredeemable).
The Action taken by PCFS Directors to ‘Intentionally’ register a fraudulent mortgage: But PCFS wants to swindle IRobbins so badly and exact easy leverage so they make a conscious effort with legal counsel to take the next step in the swindle to launder/register with a Provincial Institution Land Title Office (New Westminster), a loan agreement they know to be criminal, deceptive or unconscionable. PCFS cannot register the PCFS loan agreement with 98.7% A.P.R. Why didn’t PCFS register the mortgage if the loan were kosher? What is the solution for the crooks? File the same loan with no changes under a 2nd company name you also own (Cambridge) and include the 8.9%, not the 98.7% from Credit Disclosure that occurs in the PCFS illegal loan agreement. (ED: Diabolical laughter insert here for in the interests of sarcasm).
So the Directors of PCFS & Cambridge (Directors Duties and Responsibilities – Fiduciary responsibility) conspire to register a criminal loan into a lawfully appearing one, utilizing the intentional (confessed) misfeasance of Land Title Office to assure success. (ED(1): As you read and for easy Officious Bystander context the 2009 IRobbins mortgage had with conventional lender BMO was $200,000. 3 years later relegated to Subprime like the U.S. in 2008 status it was nearing $400,000. Overdue taxes cannot explain this, only unconscionable organized corruption at the provincial level can permit this). (ED(2): Known massive fraud in a real estate market already and now this subprime to nightmare about to appear on an already fragile scene).
Summary of the original criminal loan (Peet and Cowan) and fraudulent mortgage registration (Cambridge Mortgage) with IRobbins to this point: The matter of Cambridge (“CM”) and Peet & Cowan (PCFS) sister companies with similar two (male) owners is the focus here. The original loan agreement is a criminal rate at 98.7% and the onus is not on the borrower to explain this. It was up to Bakonyi and Cambridge to disclose these facts to the presiding Judge. By inducing IRobbins to sign the agreement at 8.9%, IRobbins is already paying 6 percentage points more than other convention mortgages of people in similar circumstance with a big equity -- at 8.9%. By including the PCFS loan agreement on BC Letterhead with Government emblem just oozing legitimacy and credibility, both the Government of British Columbia are joined at the hip in the cause of damages to IRobbins. By filing a criminal, deceptive, unconscionable, (ED: not to mention $30,000 of straight theft within the actual loan including a bonus to Robert Ellis without support of $12,000) loan agreement/mortgage registration Government of BC/PCFS/CM the fraud becomes institutionalized along with the Constitution of Canada which grants power and authority to Canada.
On January 3, 2013 when CM registers the mortgage against IRobbins ® ( Honeysuckle Lane ® Home), the Government of Canada, province of British Columbia, Peet & Cowan Financial Services & Cambridge Mortgage (others too), their two owners and corporate directors have a cause of action against them as well. On January 3, 2013 PCFS & CM are guilty of malfeasance, while both levels of senior government are at least guilty of misfeasance. (Ed: Misfeasance alone can ground Punitive Damages along with regular compensation). (ED(1): The Enduring Power of Attorney to her husband is then filed by Davidson’s law office October 6, 2013 at BC Land Title and served upon Cambridge – PCFS, Law Society of BC, BC Attorney General, and BC Ministry of Finance). (ED(2): For context had Simple Interest of 9% been used against $300,000 from January 2012 until January 2016 with no additional payment the mortgage would have been $420,000 and value of subject property $1,500,000 or well over a $1,000,000 to IRobbins).
(ED(1): The Enduring Power of Attorney to her husband is then filed by Davidson’s law office October 6, 2013 at BC Land Title and served upon Cambridge – PCFS, Law Society of BC, BC Attorney General, and BC Ministry of Finance). (ED(2): For context had Simple Interest of 9% been used against $300,000 from January 2012 until January 2016 with no additional payment the mortgage would have been $420,000 and value of subject property $1,500,000 or well over a $1,000,000 to IRobbins). (ED(3): As at this writing IRobbins has not received a dime for property, or her possessions ensured for hundreds of thousands of dollars everything taken-- like honest to goodness Nazis did).
This from Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, (2014) 3 S.C.R. 494 @20141113, Docket 35380 ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ALBERTA, subject matters of decision: Contracts, Breach, Performance, Duty of Good Faith – Duty of honest performance, Damages, Quantum. “Canada common law in relation to good faith performance of contracts is piecemeal, unsettled and unclear. Two incremental steps are in order to make the common law more coherent and more just.” “The first step is to acknowledge that good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of the common law of contract which underpins and informs the various rules in which the common law…recognized obligation of good faith contractual performance.” “The second step is to recognize, as a further that it will enhance manifestation of this organizing principle of good faith, that there is a common law duty which applies to all contracts to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations.” “Taking these two steps will put in place a duty that is just, that accords with the reasonable expectations of…parties and that is sufficiently precise that it will enhance rather than detract from…uncertainty.” “There is an ongoing principle of good faith that parties must perform their contractual duties honestly and reasonably and not capriciously or arbitrarily.”
“An organizing principle states in general terms a requirement of justice from which more specific legal doctrines may be directed” [I.Robbins v Cambridge is that historical case]. “An organizing principle therefore is not a free-standing rule, but rather a standard that underpins and is manifested in more specific legal doctrine and may be given weight in different situations. It is the standard that helps to understand and develop the law.” “The ongoing principle of/good faith exemplifies the notion that, in carrying out his or her own performance of the contract, a contracting party should have regard to the legitimate contractual interests of the contracting partner……” “It merely requires that a party not seek to undermine those interests in bad faith.”
“This general principle has strong conceptual differences for the much higher obligations of fiduciary duty.” (ED: How did IR’s original mortgage agreement with BMO (before subprime issue) – foreclosed on with no Notice (proven at Taxation of Bill before Special Registrar and Master {unique eh?} in 2009 @ $200,000 become the aforementioned $392,000 in 4 years time after being shoved into ravages of subprime in B.C.? keeping eyes on subprime and public interest). (ED: Bhasin v Hrynew Nov 2014 release S.C.C. furthers duty in common law way behind U.S. civil jurisprudence).
Peet & Cowan Financial Services & Cambridge Mortgaged acted so severely against IRobbins… ..that seeking settlement at $34,000,000 inclusive of $8,000,000 in property loss, rents loss, adjustment, non pecuniary, aggravated damages, Interest on Damages, Court Costs/Other, the balance being sought in Punitive Damages in IRobbins is $26,000,000. This amount is more than the $21,000,000 ‘suspicious monies’ (BC Premier’s John Horgan’s words) paid out in settlement with Boss Power Uranium. If the crooks get $7 million how much should a woman raped of her possessions receive in a just society-in a bona fide free democracy?
“APR” is at all times and places inferred upon the Federal Interest Act, as the criteria – (calculated yearly or half yearly, not in advance) precisely stipulating the legal options for so charging interest is intended to maintain a constant so important for economic viability in valid western democracies. “A yearly interest rate that includes fees and costs paid to obtain the loan. Lenders are required by law to disclose this interest rate. The rate is calculated in a standard way, taking the average compound interest rate over the term loan so borrowers can compare loans. In Mortgages, it is the interest rate of a mortgage when taking into account the interest, mortgage insurance, and certain closing costs including points paid at closing.” (ED: If Canada cannot properly disclose the real Interest Rates being sold or swindled how can trading partners take us seriously? How can Canadian consumers be made confident when there is a dangerous economic explosion relating to interest rate fraud similar to U.S. 2008 -- percolating like a volcano beneath them?)
Section 4 Interest Act and 5% default provision: For purposes of utilizing Section 4 of the Interest Act, I introduce an account of a recent Ontario Superior Court decision from Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Solar Power Network Inc. v Clear Flow Energy Corp. The point of introduction of this case to these submissions on damages is to point out the confusion with Interest Rates and to underscore that the onus of disclosure is on the lender and not the borrower, even against defendants’ arguments that the borrower is sophisticated. Obviously the intention here is not to suggest that Peet & Cowan/Cambridge Mortgage can pay IRobbins back some of the money originally taken; it is simply to say that when rates are confusing, the default rate applies. IRobbins offered PCFS/Cambridge a without prejudice offer to settle on the basis of Section 4 default, and can there be any doubt there is confusion about the Interest Rate in Robbins v Cambridge (and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth).
(Ed: Keep in mind this applies to the loan, the provisions for mortgages are in Section 6). The Ontario Superior Court said this in Clearview: “In my view, the statutory requirement for an express statement is designed to avoid the exact type of mischief that can occur when rates are not annualized and the borrower, therefore, does not have a clear understanding of obligation..on (sic) interest.” “The requirement of an express statement does away with this type of dispute and uncertainty.” Again, from the Ontario Superior Court in Clearview: “The case law accepts that there are two potential methods of expressing the equivalent rate of interest. The first is the “nominal interest rate”. This is expressed by simply multiplying the monthly interest by the number of compounding periods (i.e. 2% per month is “equivalent” to 24% per annum).”
“The second is the “effective annual interest rate”. This rate factors in the effect that compounding has on the overall interest rate (i.e. 2% per month, when factored in yearly compounding is “equivalent” to 26.8% per annum.” (ED: The point from Clearview once again, confusion equals 5% default rate, a best case scenario for deceptive or unclear contracts for loan).
The (apparent) Inability of both Federal Government of Canada & Province of British Columbia to protect IRobbins & Public Interest. BC Securities Commission: (not related to FICOM or Mortgage Brokers). These recent articles evidence the incredible unaccountability of BC Securities Commission, and although IRobbins v Cambridge targets Mortgage Brokers more specifically, this BCSC matter helps to define the level of criminality permitted to exist in BC. The language employed - “impunity” serves to support the need to pay out big ($$$$$$$$$$) in IRobbins v Cambridge.
On November 21, 2017 “Vancouver Sun” – “BC Government denounces BC Securities Commission dismal penalty collection record” (inclusive of other articles by Gordon Hoekstra): “From fiscal 2007-08 to 2016-2017, the B.C. Securities Commission had collected less than two per cent (2%) of $510 million in fines and orders to pay back the proceeds of fraudulent activities according to the commissioner’s financial reports and other records.” “In the written statement (Carole) James said “British Columbians believe in fair play and that everyone should have to play in the rules.” “The decision to allow the hundreds of millions in fines issued by the British Columbia Securities Commission to sit uncollected was not in the best interests of British Columbians.”
“In her statement, James noted the securities commission is an independent regulator at arm’s length from the government, saying: “we would encourage any proposals from the BCSC on any new mechanism they may need to collect the fines under the BC Securities Act.” “The Ontario Securities Commission has a collection rate of about 18 percent in the past decade. Still, there are $370 million in uncollected fines. Recently, the OSC hired a specialized law firm to help boost collections.” (ED: Ontario is 3 times and more, the pop of B.C.) “Experts say that if penalties are not collected, it can create a situation of impunity which fosters more “A Post Media investigation (reveals) “$30 million in potential assets” “of fraudsters who had not paid their penalties. One fraudster owns a $700,000 home in Las Vegas and another $1.4 million dollar condo in Hawaii.”
(ED (1): The IRobbins v Cambridge/Peet & Cowan malfeasance begins with Annual Percentage Rates (as opposed to Simple Interest) and The Federal Interest Act (R.S.C., 1985) let’s look to it. Keep in mind that all mortgages filed with Land Title stipulate and represent an APR in a specific Box on the registration document under the Federal Interest Act). (ED(2): That box on that mortgage registration document filed at Land Title (New Westminster) is the legal jurisdiction of the Federal government. The remainder then is the jurisdiction of BC. The document ties inextricably the responsibilities of both levels of government. The top authority at Land Title informed Glen P. Robbins (affidavit Google v Equustek) that Land Title DOES NOT check mortgage (any) documents other than names and signatures. (ED (3): I also note the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, Chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada which ultimately provide that all of Canada’s federal laws supersede provincial legal jurisdiction. This would include the Federal Interest Act, unless the Trudeau Cabinet, Treasury, & Bank of Canada know something the rest of the public do not—and the Constitution of Canada having authority over the Legal Profession Act (BC)). For a hundred years one stated Interest Rate percentage was featured in this ‘Federal Box’ on BC Land Title Mortgage Registration, ‘calculated annually or semi annually not in advance’. The mortgage registration Cambridge Mortgage (laundering company of Peet & Cowan Financial Services (original loan agreement), featured two different interest rates once 8.9%, the other 9.2% They were obviously intently trying to sell the plausible appearance of conforming to the Federal Legislation. (Bear in mind that in 2014 IRobbins wrote to Competition Bureau with SCC formed case and complaint relating to Peet & Cowan and Cambridge. Competition Bureau wrote back saying FICOM (that FICOM) was responsible for administering the federal law in BC. IR complains to FICOM who tells her Mortgage Brokers are self regulated, nothing to do with us. Mortgage Broker CEO Samantha Gale tells IR (GPR) they police APR vigorously. Registrar of Brokers is then written, to who tells IR the 98.76% is a “clerical error” – get lost.)
FICOM & BC Mortgage Brokers: From the website for FICOM, Financial Institutions Commission is www.fic.gov.bc.ca/?p=about_ us responsibilities. Under heading “About Us” & “Responsibilities” and “What We Do and What We Don’t Do”, with FICOM (represents & warrants): “In some areas, we share responsibility with other regulatory partners. In other cases the jurisdiction may be federal and you will want to contact the appropriate federal agency.” FICOM establishes 3 “Departments” & 6 “Areas” of FICOM’s “areas of responsibility”. Under Financial Institutions Division is included the areas of “Credit Unions”, “Trust Companies”, ”Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation” and “Insurance”. A 2nd Department is “Pension Plans” whose area is “Pension Plans”. (ED: Does this include the new sweet BC pensions for Judges acting under the Federal Judges Act?)
Mortgage Brokers: We know Peet & Cowan Financial Services “PCFS” and ‘sister company’ in the fraud of IRobbins Cambridge Mortgage “CM” are plying their deceptive practices under the Mortgage Brokers Act and Regulations. Peet & Cowan ‘PCFS’ is listed as a registrant at 201-595 Howe Street, Vancouver, B.C., V8B OR2 (Referred to in 2014 submissions to Competition Bureau of Canada as ‘Company A’ consistent with language in Competition Act Canada, while Cambridge was ‘Company B’). Cambridge Mortgage Investments ‘CM’ is also listed as having office at 201-595 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC. Under “Enforcement” Mortgage Brokers between 2018-02-12 & 2004-08-30 (13.5 years) issue 60 Enforcements involving generally “Issues” relating to “Conduct Prejudicial to the Public Interest”.
To Consumers, FICOM, on behalf of all Departments and Areas inclusive of Mortgage Brokers: “The Registration of Mortgage Brokers protects the public and enhances mortgage broker integrity by enforcing mortgage broker suitability requirements and reducing and preventing market misconduct under the Mortgage Brokers Act and Regulations.”
Under Section 2 of the Mortgage Brokers Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 313 stipulates: “The registrar has the powers, and must discharge duties conferred or imposed on the Registrar by this Act”. (ED: Keep in mind the word “must” compel the Registrars commitment to IRobbins a fiduciary responsibility. A Duty of Care was now in play at the Institutional level of Finance. Was the Registrar acting responsibly with IRobbins after IRobbins provided evidence of the unconscionable and criminal agreement at 98.7% A.P.R. to the Registrar, by referring to this as a “clerical error”?). Let’s have a look at some other provisions relating to the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers:
Under Section 6: “Procedure and Powers of Registrar for Inquiry”: “(2) For sections 5 and 8, the Registrar may investigate, inquire into and exercise…” “(2.1) The registrar, by order may (a) appoint a person to conduct an investigation, examination and inquiry referred to in subsection (2)…..” “(7) On an Inquiry under this Act and or being satisfied that it is necessary and in the public interest, the registrar or a person appointed under section (2.1) may (a) enter the business premises of a person registered under the Act as a mortgage broker or sub mortgage broker during business hours for the purpose of carrying out an inspection, examination or analysis of records, property, assets or things that used in the production of records in the production of records, property or assets..things inspected” (ED: whatever ‘things’ means). “(7.1) On application by the registrar and on being satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe there may be anything that may reasonably related to the subject matter of an Inquiry under this Act…..”A justice may make an order authorizing the registrar or a person designated by the registrar and named in the Order (c) to enter into the building premises, building, receptacle or place at any reasonable time, for purposes of carrying out an inspection, examination or analysis of recoverable property, assets or things that may reasonably related to the subject matter of the Inquiry.” “(7.2) An application for an order under section (7.1) must be made in the prescribed manner, and unless a justice otherwise directs, may be (a) made without notice, and (b) heard in the absence of the public.” “(8) On an Inquiry under this Act, the registrar may appoint an accountant or other experts to examine records, assets or things of the person whose affairs are being investigated.”
Under Section 7 of the Mortgage Brokers Act “Freezing of Trust Funds” @ “7(1), If (a) the registrar is about to examine, or is examining, or has examined a person under the Act, (b) the registrar is about to make or has made a direction, decision, order or ruling…….., or (c) criminal proceedings or proceedings in respect of a contract of this Act,….the registrar may, in writing in telegram (d) direct any person or order control for safe keeping any funds in securities…” Section “8 (1)(d) “Registrars Orders” (an) Order (may be made) to carry out specific actions that the registrar considers necessary to remedy the situation, if, in the opinion of the registrar, any of the following paragraphs apply (f) the person (PCFS & CM) is in breach of the Act, the regulations or a condition of the registration; (g) the person is a party to a mortgage transaction that’s harsh and unconscionable or otherwise inequitable.” (h) the person has made a statement in a record filed or provided under the Act that, at the time and in light of the circumstances under the statement was made, was misleading with respect to a material fact or that omitted to state a material fact, the omission of which make the statement false or misleading”; (i) the person has conducted or is conducting business in a manner which is prejudicial to the public interest; (j) the person is in breach of Part 2 or 5 of the Business Practice and Consumer Protection Act prescribed under Section 9.1 (2).”
Business Practice & Consumer Protection Act linkage to Mortgage Broker Act: Both demand the proper disclosure of consumer credit. Under section 9.1 (1) “In this section “director” has the same meaning as in the Business Practice and Consumer Protection Act. (2) For the purposes of this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a regulation under subsection (2), (a) the registration and director each have and may exercise, in relation to the prescribed provisions of Parts 2 & 5 of the Business Practices & Consumer Protection Act, the rights & powers, if any, prescribed for under subsection (3) and without limiting this, the registrar or director, as the case may be,….exercise the rights & powers of the registrar under sections 8 and 8.1 of the Act in relation to any person, registrant under this Act, who contravenes a prescribed provision of Part 2 of the Business Practice & Consumer Protection Act, and (b) Part 13 of the Business Practice & Consumer Protection Act applies in respect of the contravention of a prescribed power of Part 2 or 5 of the Act. Part 2 Mortgage Broker Act – Disclaimer – Division 1 Application 15.01 “Disclosure to Borrowers” “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe one or more mortgage transactions…for the purposes of this section and may, for each prescribed mortgage transaction…prescribe (a) the provision of Part 5 of the Business Practice & Consumer Protection Act that apply to the mortgage transaction, and (b) the person who, in relation to that mortgage transaction, must comply with, and who is otherwise subject to, the provisions of Part 5 of the Business Practice and Consumer Protection Act in relation to that mortgage transaction.”
The Cambridge Petition of Foreclosure (commencing the Largest case of organized ‘High Office” Government Malfeasance in Canadian history): Cambridge files a Petition of Foreclosure on IRobbins Honeysuckle home in March of 2013. BMO is included as a respondent. Robert Ellis (again) represents BMO and is the so called ‘driving –force’ behind the prosecution of the both the procedural order and substantive order. The other respondents are IRobbins and FM, as well as 2 “tenants” KR and VR all of whom suffer economic or other losses. Once again Vancouver registry close to Cambridge Mortgages office in downtown Vancouver as well as their lawyer Ron Bakonyi’s office in downtown Vancouver is used for filing the petition when New Westminster is closest to IRobbins and Honeysuckle.
IRobbins has under BC Civil Rules until April 21st 2018 to file a response to petition. Cambridge’s petition like Robert Ellis’ BMO petition (2009) fails to comply with rules that any facts material to the foreclosure be included. It is a legally deficient petition – the onus here is on the ‘petition filer’ a trade off presumably with the fact that a final order nisi cannot achieve a direct appeal under BC Court of Appeal Rules. On April 15, 2018 Cambridge and BMO jointly file a Notice of Hearing. Again, like Ellis’s proven track record of not actually sending notices as he did in IRobbins v BMO – he and Bakonyi acting for Cambridge (ED: GPR calls it a ‘mice and men lawyers’ relationship) do the same thing with the Notice of Hearing. As Glen P. Robbins Supreme Court of Canada filing in Google v Equustek (read and reviewed by Brown J. of that Court) denotes as exhibit under affidavit filing, that the rules for filing notice of hearing establishes criteria as to when a notice of hearing may be filed (and served). This may only be done (a) following the filing and service of the response to petition; or (b) after the time period for filing a response to petition occurs.
The Notice of Hearing document filed April 15, 2013 at Vancouver courthouse registry 800 Smithe Street, provides some further tell tale signs of malfeasance by Cambridge attorney Bakonyi (ED: And his confederate-mentor Robert Ellis of BMO). It stipulates on the face of the form that a response to the petition of IRobbins has been filed when in fact it was not filed until April 17, 2018 two days after the filing of the Notice of Hearing by Bakonyi-Cambridge and Ellis-BMO with misrepresentations of fact included in breach of the BC Civil Rules. The Notice of Hearing document stipulates that IRobbins agreed to a five minute hearing. It says so right on the face of page 1 of the document. (ED: This hearing date is obtained by virtue of a fraudulent filing by Bakonyi and Ellis for Cambridge and BMO respectively intended to deceive the BC Civil Registry. The apportionment of damages ought to always consider the court registries willful blindness or misfeasance to see if their actions constitute part of the overall bad faith component in Punitive Damages.)
The notice of hearing document should never have been accepted for filing, and the court registry would easily have seen this is they simply checked the docket of filing right under their nose(s). (ED: The court registry is supposed to be the ‘gatekeeper’ not the law society). All forms for court registry are conceived, planned and prepared by the Government of British Columbia (“The State”) to be used in court filings.
Any form, in this case the notice of hearing was accepted prematurely by court registry, it is obvious to anyone in particular Brown J. who we know has read the criminal allegations relating to Cambridge Mortgage as they were provided in submission in Google v Equustek. The court registry at BC Supreme Court participated in the miscarriage of justice by accepting a document for filing that clearly was misrepresented with information right at the fingertips of court registry employees to correct. ‘Come back in a few days when the time period for IRobbins to file her response to petition expires’ (April 21, 2013) is what a competent registry would have told Bakonyi. The Notice of Hearing document draws further suspicion when Bakonyi for Cambridge and Ellis for BMO jointly declare the hearing of the petition will require only 5 minutes. Their signatures on the document attest to their mindset in filing the document. They don’t really expect the petition to be opposed because they know IRobbins will once again not receive Notice of it. (ED: Knowing GPR – and lawsuit filed by IRobbins against Cambridge Mortgage in New Westminster courthouse February 2013 relating to that mortgage, what on earth would have possessed these two legal creatures to believe they would get a 5 minute hearing unless they did not intend to provide proper notice?)
Once again IRobbins does not receive the Notice of Hearing document designed specifically for use in BC courts by the State – BC Government and the BC Supreme Court Registry fails to identify deficiencies in the document filing conspicuous on their face.
(Transcript of Foreclosure Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp v IRobbins featuring 15(5) – From Page 100, Para 339 of Glen P. Robbins submissions (affidavit) to SCC in Google v Equustek (Fenlon J. was lower court justice: “At page 1 of proceedings (pg 156) of 2 volume submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada time stamped received May 7, 2015 Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”)- -(a)ttends to Vancouver courthouse BC Supreme Court on behalf of IRobbins and FM who have endorsed the response to foreclosure petition in their own hand. Glen Robbins appears on IRobbins behalf May 2013 at hearing of foreclosure petition to tell the court, once again no Notice is provided and to inform the court that document filing by Cambridge has already produced the initial signs of miscarriage of justice through manipulated and illegal document filing. He seeks an adjournment and a Trial hearing and wants to hire a lawyer.”
From Page 100, Para 400 of GPR affidavit to SCC relating to May 9, 2013 Court Transcript BC Supreme Court: “Glen Robbins states to the court: My name is Glen P. Robbins, for my wife IRobbins and (another), and I want to draw to the court’s attention before we are prejudiced any further, that the documents filed by the petitioner are incorrect documents.” Glen P. Robbins is referring to the Notice of Hearing document filed April 15, 2013 with incorrect information on it – **deficient for filing. (ED: Another document brought to the Ombudspersons Office). From Page 101 Para 345 of GPR affidavit to SCC:
“Madame Justice Fenlon for THE COURT states: **“That’s fine. You are here though speaking on behalf of (FM), (??) so I’ll just ask you to have a seat for a moment so that I can get some sense of what is being applied for here.” (ED: this is proof of recognition of commencement of GPR seeking right of audience and perhaps receiving it vis a vis IRobbins, but not necessarily FM).
From Page 101 Para 350 of GPR affidavit to SCC: ‘At page 2 of submissions Mr. Bakonyi for Cambridge begins to speak to the substantive matter of his petition for foreclosure application’: “My Lady, this is usually a usual sort of application for (sic) foreclosure.” Glen P. Robbins at page 2 line 13 of Transcript of the court: “Excuse me, I do not have that document”, to which the Court (Fenlon J.) responds: “Just a moment”. “Now is there an extra copy of the chambers record?” to which Bakonyi replies: “I don’t have an extra copy of it”, to which the Court responds: “Just a moment though”. It would be helpful if Mr. Robbins had a copy of the notice of hearing”. “Madame Registrar, do you have another copy there?”, to which THE COURT CLERK responds: “No, ma’am, all I have is the notice of hearing”.
From line 33 page 2 of Court Transcript in GPR affidavit to SCC relating to this IRobbins v Cambridge matter: ‘THE COURT says to all: “And I’m going to set some rules here on this application, Mr. Robbins, that apply to everyone, and I’m going to ask you to hold your fire, so to speak, and not interrupt Mr. Bakonyi and then I will permit you to speak and I will ask Mr. Bakonyi not to interrupt you, so those are the rules of engagement here.” (ED(1): It is difficult to determine if Fenlon J. is permitting GPR to speak to the substantive matter of the foreclosure petition or to the matter of right of audience as there is no application made regarding GPR vis a vis the latter procedural matter). (So, by page 2 we establish two clear facts from the mind of Fenlon J. The first is her acknowledgment and awareness of complaints that they were not provided with a notice of hearing document. Fenlon J. makes effort to find one for Glen Robbins & the 2nd one is she has not included Glen P. Robbins wife IRobbins in discussion relating to audience and only “FM” – IRobbins joint tenant).
(ED(2): It is also noteworthy that Fenlon J. refers to only a singular application – the petition and not any other independent application under Rule 8 BC Civil Rules).
At page 2 Bakonyi speaks to THE COURT: “Yes, My Lady. The first thing I’m here to – the reason we’re in this courtroom today is because I’m, my position is that Mr. Robbins has no standing to be here today/and to speak on behalf of IRobbins & FM (sic).” (ED: The only subject matter before the Court is the petition for foreclosure – the (only) substantive application. Again, “standing” means sufficient legal interest to the case to participate. Standing and right of audience are different concepts).
At line 27 page 3 of Transcript (Page 102 Para 359 of S.C.C. submissions Mr. Bakonyi states: “Now, Robbins raises a whole host of problems by attempting to represent the owner(s) (sic). Number 1 he is not a party to the action. If you look at tab 5, exhibit A the mortgage is there.” (ED: Pardon??) Beginning line 11 page 4 of Transcript Bakonyi adds: (ED: and this is a professional lawyer talking-imagine Ricky from Trailer Park Boys): “So normally there are times when people attempt to speak on behalf of others and sometimes it happens, but in this case it presents a whole host of problems because the first element is I’m objecting to it because Mr. Robbins has no standing because he’s not a party.” (ED: Obviously Bakonyi doesn’t understand the legal concepts and needs some educating refreshers).
At line 23 page 4 of Court Transcript Bakonyi continues: “…well, I’m going to start by just giving you a copy of that order (the Grauer J. order)..” “It was an action between the Law Society and Mr. Robbins..and the order says: “The respondent, Glen P. Robbins 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 except as permitted under section 15(1) of . At Page 4 line 44 Bakonyi reflects his (lack of) knowledge of the LPA and Grauer J.’s order describing his interpretation of section 15(1) of the LPA: “Which deals with you have to be a lawyer to be able to practice law”. (ED: This isn’t true, one who is not a lawyer may “practice law” but may not receive pay or benefit).
At line 20 of page 8 THE COURT asks: “But..there is no vexatious litigant order?” To which Bakonyi at line 21 responds: “The (sic) Law Society is looking at that”. (ED: Bakonyi now links himself to discussions with the Law Society which by this time 2 year past his decision has never mentioned vexatious litigant to GPR either in writing or legal mind meld). (ED: The Law Society never contacts Glen P about this vexatious litigant order). (ED: Bakonyi informs the Court that the Law Society of B.C. is “looking at that” – what is that supposed to mean?)
“There is none no. The only reason it’s in front of you- (ED: the 14 page double spaced – child friendly Grauer J. order)-…I just happened to come across that when I looked at ***his name on the Internet. It’s clear that..Mr. Robbins is the operating mind.”
At line 26 of page 8 THE COURT responds to Bakonyi’s weak eloquence by asking Bakonyi: “All right. So you are saying on behalf of your client that this is a standard mortgage foreclosure.” And Bakonyi responds “Yes” (ED: Bakonyi’s submission is a lie, he is aware of problems with mortgage). (ED: This is important because it isn’t a standard mortgage foreclosure, it is in fact a contentious petition and the onus was on Cambridge Mortgage to disclose those issues in the petition).
At line 4 page 9 THE COURT asks Bakonyi: “And the preliminary issue is whether the court should be hearing from Mr. Robbins” (ED: keep this in mind in separating a non substantive issue (formal rule 8 application and evidence to right of audience – judicial discretion), (w)here at line 6 Page 9 Bakonyi answers: “Right”. (ED(1): This line 4 page 9 comment is important for many reasons but most important to point that the Court and legal counsel for Cambridge – Bakonyi both agree the right of audience matter is a procedural question and not a substantive one {the latter requiring a separate application}. This matters when Bakonyi and Ellis after hearing GPR in open court express his intention to obtain an Enduring Power of Attorney for registration at Land Title. They scheme to jointly file an Order Made an Application which the court registry should never have accepted because an order was already made at hearing.) (ED: GPR lawyer bait) (ED(2): This is a fraudulent document with no court clerk notes which must accompany the draft order).
At line 25 Page 9 Robert Ellis-- (ED: Who is made a respondent 3 years later because the subsequent lenders are on his ass – he is claiming he is owed a few hundred dollars and should thus be a respondent)—says to Fenlon J.: (1)“My Lady, I only intend to address the issue of standing of Mr. Robbins” – he adds at line 31 Page 9 (2) “I’m all in favour of lay litigants having their day in court” – from which at line 33 former assistant to Elizabeth Lyall (ED: The $1,000 per hour Fasken Martineau GPR turned into a mockery – and Ian Mulgrew of the Sun published everywhere – the talk of legal town -)-
Fenlon J. replies “Yes” (ED: This is Fenlon J.’s feigned awakening – Ellis – a Law Society insider was an hour and one half late for a few hundred dollars – GPR told the court and has since said publicly – Ellis arranged with the court for Fenlon J. to sit at hearing)-------------Ellis at line 33 adds (3)“However there has to be limits”. At line 11 Page 11 Fenlon J. (“The Court”) says….”But the issue before me is whether Mr. Robbins is – should be permitted to speak on behalf of IRobbins (sic).” (ED: One can see that Fenlon J. makes this comment following both Bakonyi and Ellis’s awful and dishonest submissions – she is clearly aware about the right of audience issue before her).
At line 29 Page 11 (166 in Affidavit submission to Supreme Court of Canada Fenlon J. constitutionally appointed – federally paid BC Superior Court Justice asks Ellis: “And what do you say is the effect of the order of Justice Grauer?” (ED: The colluded robbery begins errr commences). (ED: Note the use of the word effect – which must capture the Reasons of Grauer J.)
At line 31 Page 11 Ellis for BMO says: (4)“I support my friend’s position on this (Bakonyi) that Mr. Robbins is the “driving force” --(ED: this is the commencement of the cooking up of “driving force” as members of the Law Society and some in BC Judiciary begin to con their way out of the Cambridge problem and use the courts as their own person playground to do so. ---behind all of the responses (ED: Bakonyi had said there were no responses (ED: response petition)----“He is clearly NOT a member of the Law Society” (ED: ThanksGod for that). (ED(1): Both of Ellis’ comments have nothing to do with right of audience). (ED(2): This time GPR and IRobbins got it stone cold perfect – IRobbins signed all her own documents as did FM – (later we will discover that FM – the other party with IRobbins attended the April 7, 2014) hearing before Konigsberg J. who issued stay of execution order circumnavigated by Bakonyi/Cambridge – with help from Kleisinger of LSBC enforcement (“hereinafter dirty cop”) and Hinkson CJ – to defraud Supreme Court of Canada). (ED(3): This is like the scene in The Verdict where the Catholic Hospital is being sued for malpractice and the nurse who was instructed to change numbers to cover up the crooked doctor admits it in open court and the great and powerful lawyer for the Hospital –begins to panic).
*Now Fenlon J. “THE COURT” pivots and turns to “GPRobbins” at line 45 Page 14 provides absolute cause for overturning everything on the file at line 45 Page 14 (page 169 of affidavit to SCC in Google) AND SAYS”: “THIS ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE GRAUER CLEARLY SAYS YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEAK ON ANYONE’S BEHALF” (ED(1): The appeal filed at BC Court of Appeal is a regular appeal not permitted at appeal (leave (permission) is required. GPR includes himself in the regular appeal as this relates to Fenlon’s mistake at line 45 Page 14: “THIS ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE GRAUER CLEARLY SAYS YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEAK ON ANYONE’S BEHALF” – Grauer’s order has nothing to do with right of audience. This regular appeal would capture the Order Made Application fraudulent document. This appeal was never heard and the S.C.C. hearing application for extension of time to file leave to appeal (foreclosure order) is unrelated to this appeal yet the S.C.C. justices mistakenly relate their order to the regular appeal docket). (ED(2): Fenlon J. has in GPR’s opinion acted in contemptuous fashion to Grauer J.’s order which clearly does not say that as is made clear).
At line 38 Page 15 (page 170 of SCC transcript in Google read by Brown J.) Fenlon J. had said this: *“I agree that its normally up to the Judge hearing the matter to decide whether to permit somebody to speak on behalf of others, and as I said to you, that happens very often in this courtroom….the other issue is Mr. Justice Grauer says “No.”……Justice Grauer says (sic) Mr. Robbins is not to be speaking on behalf of anyone else.” (ED: One can see how Fisher J. ‘got it’ on 15(5), and then Adair J. came in Boyer ‘confused’ about 15(5) – trying to get Fenlon J. off the hook – Adair J.’s screw up of Grauer J.’s Reasons is intended to ameliorate GPR suggestion it’s all cooked up).
At line 9 page 16 of Court Transcript--(ED: GPR has sniffed out the “Canada’s Constitutional Court Con Job™”) —where Glen P. Robbins says: “That isn’t what the Judgment says” (sic) – to which The Court/Fenlon J. ™ responds saying: “that’s what the Order says” (ED: The Order recites the section 15(5) of the solicitors actions BUT Justice Fenlon has full Reasons for Judgment right in front of her-Bakonyi handed it up—{like circus folk eh?}
At line 39 Page 16 Fenlon J. digs deep into her judicial ‘conjob’ adding this: “Unless you have another this Grauer order (sic) is binding on this Court” (ED: Indeed it is dear lady). At line 35 Page 19 Glen Robbins says prior to a lunch recess: “Your honour it’s terribly important you (sic) read the full judgment of Justice Grauer”
To which “Conjob Fenlon J. ™” adds: “All right sir, I’ve read the Order.” (ED: section 15(5) of the provincially legislated Legal Profession Act has now run roughshod over Grauer J. Reasons completely – GPR says this is where civil law meets criminal law—Judges in the hoosegow please—GPR told ELLIS – going to get you jailed buddy).
At line 35 Page 17 of Court Transcript Vancouver courthouse May 9, 2013 {ED: GPR says whorehouse} Glen P. Robbins states: “I want (sic) an adjournment, this is (sic) grotesque” Fenlon J.THE COURT shits her dress and at line 8 page 19 turns to cerebrally challenged counsel Ronald Bakonyi and asks: “Just if I may frame the question – that this order (it’s the order abstracted to section 15(5) no reasons) (ED: GPR says surely to Jesus this stupid judge knows the difference between an order and reasons for judgment)—somehow does not apply to speaking on behalf of people in proceedings and particular applications.”
Bakonyi’s response is thus: “I have no notice of an appeal of that order” (the abstract order). The Law Society confirmed it’s an order.”
The Court replies: “If I may, what is the section 15-1 of the Legal Professions Act?” (ED: Ka Ching on the cash register for IRobbins).
Cambridge Mortgage lawyer Bakonyi responds to Court asking him his legal expertise on the Legal Profession Act: “(I)t’s basically that no person other than a practicing lawyer is permitted to engage in the practice of law. So I think what its saying is that he (Glen Robbins) is not entitled to – this is what’s going on here in one sense. In the other –he’s not speaking – he’s driving” – (ED: yea Ron that’s good)—“he’s the driving force EVEN IF THEY SIGN THEIR NAMES (THE PARTIES) THEY ARE NOT THE DRIVING FORCE—AND WELL YOU KNOW HE’S WELL VERSED IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND I GUESS THAT’S THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION).”
After the hearing Glen P. Robbins is treated in Fenlon J.’s order as if he never appeared owing to the obviously ‘cooked up’ wink and nod deal between Fenlon J. and her Law Society ‘confederates’. GPR implores Fenlon J. to read the 14 page double spaced Reasons for Judgment during the long lunch break. He knows the fix is in by end of hearing, and to reset his ‘traps’ GPR declares in open court that he intends to obtain an Enduring Power of Attorney from IRobbins and have it filed at Land Title registry in New Westminster. (ED(1): Keep in mind Fenlon J. is a former employee of senior partner Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau. She is the same lawyer who went up against GPR in that Grauer J. case, her name is on the front of the Reasons as counsel for law society along with Michael Kleisinger). (ED(2): GPR & IRobbins hire Surrey BC lawyer Ross Davidson to prepare mutual Enduring Powers of Attorney as between GPR and IRobbins and the enduring power of attorney provided to GPR by IRobbins is then filed at New Westminster Land Title. The ‘culprits’ Bakonyi and Ellis rise to the bait revealed in the subsequent application for order of Conduct of Sale described herein).
Here is the background evidence Circa 2013 of Proof of Plan (Letters) of Law Society of BC and Enforcement Officer Michael Kleisinger’s Intent -in conjunction with Executive Director, Benchers, Board of Governors of Law Society of British Columbia-to cause harm to—IRobbins & Glen P. Robbins and to their family.
On January 6, 2014 Michael Kleisinger writes to Glen P. Robbins at his home address @ Honeysuckle Nation ™ under “Reference” (“Re:”) “Unauthorized Practice of Law” “We understand that you have drafted and filed additional pleadings and an affidavit in Court of Appeal Action No. CA 40854, despite our various warnings that the Law Society considers your participation in that matter to be contrary to the order of Mr. Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011.” “You are not a party to those proceedings, yet you draft and file documents and appear in court on behalf of IRobbins. As we have repeatedly advised you, the Law Society considers such actions as contrary to the court order which prohibits you from “commencing, prosecuting and defending actions” on behalf of others.”
(ED(1): So Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of BC is lying of course and he knows it. Glen P. Robbins is able to draft pleadings and to take documents to court for filing. The BC Court of Appeal has decided that the LPA has no force upon that court J.A. Hall). (ED(2): So Kleisinger connects “not being a party” – and “drafting and filing documents” (haven’t touched Grauer J. yet) and “appearing in court” that the “Law Society considers such actions as contrary to the court order which prohibits you from commencing, prosecuting and defending actions on behalf of others.” **This ‘commences’ the Law Society of BC’s causation in fraud against Glen P. Robbins which ultimately impacts the Legal Breach of IRobbins Charter Rights. “We understand that you have recently alleged in correspondence that you have obtained a power of attorney from your wife” (ED: A registered at Land Title Enduring Power of Attorney (“the bait”)).
“The reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Grauer specifically addressed this issue at para 44”: “Among the things that Ms. Robbins (et al) cannot lawfully do by an attorney/agent is commence, prosecute or defend a proceeding in any court unless that attorney/agent happens to be a practicing lawyer.” (ED: “Among other things….(this in fact is not true based on definition of “practicing lawyer”). “As Mr. Justice Grauer explained at paragraph 44 of his reasons for judgment, a power of attorney does not enable you to commence, prosecute, or defend actions on behalf of others. The power of attorney does not vitiate the requirements of the Legal Profession Act, let alone an order of the court. As such, the Law Society believes that you have acted contrary to an order of the court and requires you to immediately cease doing so.” “Please confirm in writing that you will immediately cease commencing, prosecuting and defending actions on behalf of others.”
So..Kleisinger is repeating the same misrepresentation of the Grauer J. order that he and the Law Society Executive clearly appear to have ‘organized’ with members like Bakonyi (Cambridge) and Ellis (BMO) and judicial scam artist Lauri Anne Fenlon J., who translated into a court order denying GPR a right of audience at the May 9, 2013 foreclosure hearing. They have an organized plan. (ED: There is additional evidence of ‘the plan’ at provincial court). (GPR says: And the greasy dog is trying to claim its authority within his lie – just shameful). The BC Court of Appeal Action cited by Kleisinger (CA 40954) is based on different Rules of the Court than the BC Supreme Court and has its own Chief Justice also the highest Chief Justice of all BC Courts.
Glen P. Robbins is a party to the appeal based on two pivotal matters, the first the procedural order of Fenlon J. in the Cambridge matter (H130330), and 2nd the erroneous duplicate Order Made After Application intended to fool subsequent Justices & (Master Tokarek at Conduct of Sale application). On its face Kleisingers representation are an aggressive lie using a planned misrepresentation of Grauer J.’s Reasons which clearly leave a right or denial of right of audience with justices of the court under constitutional discretion – Glen P. Robbins nor anyone else can never breach subsection 15(5) of the LPA if they are a party to the action because a party without legal counsel would be required to commence an action. This is enough to ‘convict’ Kleisinger, let alone the further misrepresentations made by him regarding the LPA and right of audience matters. For Glen P. Robbins to advance his appeal of his interests from H130330 he must also be a party to the action. A respondent is a party to an action.
Beyond this, Kleisinger’s actions are without defence a purposeful contempt of judicial order to intimidate and frighten Glen P. Robbins & IRobbins et al. He and the Law Society are using their State mandate to bar legitimate parties to a hearing – to defend their property and legal interests – to defend and cover up – the Interest fraud evident in Cambridge Mortgage. IRobbins refuses to attend to any proceeding based on the Kleisinger Law Society threats to GPR – and Glen P. Robbins and FM attend to only one the strategic attendance to the April 7, 2014 (Hail Mary) application to BC Supreme Court heard by Kloegman J. wherein his vacant possession application is adjourned and Stay of Execution order is placed against (1) the order nisi; (2) the conduct of sale order (and appeal of it by IRobbins; (3) the application for vacant possession order of Cambridge; (4) the application for hearing Glen P. Robbins to be added as party.
(ED: Once again this is the Stay of Execution order Bakonyi acts in contempt of – doesn’t prepare and file draft order with on instruction from his client(s) – sneaks into court April 23 2014 and April 24 2014 in contravention of the Order).
The Law Society of BC has now re interpreted the Grauer J. order in a similar way to the way a number of writers have written about the Holocaust – that it never happened. Even the Law Society petition S111171 disappears as if it doesn’t exist. Michael Kleisinger also attributes the whole of Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment to their own interpretation of what bona fide parties may or may not do. Can there be any doubt that but for the actions of the Law Society of BC – IRobbins et al and Glen P. Robbins would not have come to the harm it did, and the public would have been warned about fraudulent subprime loans riddled through British Columbia’s already corrupt real estate market? Can there be any doubt these actions of Michael Kleisinger Enforcement Officer Law Society of BC and his direction and instruction to Bakonyi (Cambridge) who admits on Transcript to speaking to LSBC – are intended to also cover up the millions and millions of dollars Law Society members are earning each year registering these fraudulent mortgages?
Here is the letter that was written and delivered to the BC Chief Justice for British Columbia Robert Bauman and attention to CJ Chris Hinkson assessing the situation at March 2017. https://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1158.html
By Registered Mail, Alternative & email BC Chief Justice for British Columbia Robert Bauman, BC Chief Justice BC Supreme Court Chris Hinkson Min of Justice and AG c/o BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St, Vancouver, BC contact@bcliberals.com, Suzanne.Anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca Fax: 1 250 387 6411 V6Z 2E1 Suzanne.Anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca Fax: 1 250 387 6411 Re: matters pertaining to BSCS S111171 LSBC v Robbins & BCSC H130330 Cambridge v Robbins Attention: Chris Hinkson (BC Supreme Court Chief Justice)
“I am writing in relation to the above captioned matter (BCSC S111171), known as Law Society of B.C v Glen P. Robbins as well as BCSC H130330. You are implicated in the first which has a causal connection to the second. The original petitioner for this matter was filed February 24, 2011 in Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia and was amended subsequent to the filing of my original response petition. In that response I accepted all orders sought by LSBC. A similar circumstance occurred in the amended response petition. The petition of LSBC (S111171) sought relief pursuant to subsections 15(4) & 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act (BC (“The Act”), as it was, prior to provisions of 15(5) being slashed in half by Royal Assent of the BC Legislature in May 2012, amid wholesale changes made to the Legal Profession Act, (BC) influenced, no doubt, by the heavy criticism of 15(5) and other subsections of the Act, by Grauer J. in his Reasons for Judgment.” “I remind you that the Reasons of Justice Grauer made September 8, 2011 from trial, and from reserve judgment October 3, 2011, were made the subject of an article written by Vancouver Sun legal writer Ian Mulgrew.
At hearing September 8, 2011 Grauer J. pronounced order against me on 15(4) of the LPA 'referring to oneself as lawyer' and relieved me of any penalty beyond my promise not to do it again. I have kept with my promise to Justice Grauer. This provisions relate to injunctive relief as you would know from decisions made by you on tent city subject matter occurring in Victoria, B.C.. From reserve judgment Grauer J. ordered against me on 15(5) “commence, defend, prosecute..” one of many subsections deeply decimated in the legislation prior to Royal Assent. Grauer J. more than criticized the “clumsy” “redundant” language of 15(5) in his Reasons. I take the position that but for me 'straightening these lawyers out', these legislative changes might not have been captured, at least those dealt with by Grauer J., the contrary argument being only that the changes were going to be made anyway, which also supports me as the inference would presume that the Law Society of BC went after me to a more malicious degree than is already proved.” “I appealed the Grauer J. matter to the BC Court of Appeal on the basis of “Costs”, believing then, as I do now, that the genuflecting I did to the Law Society in response to petition, and amended petition accepting all orders they were seeking, was sufficient from me to make my efforts at trial, a 'free play' as they say in the National Football League . Low J. dismissed appeal as did a Division, led by Lowry J. The first court of appeal dismissed appeal on the basis that Costs are a matter of judicial discretion under inherent jurisdiction of a constitutionally appointed justice of a provincial superior court. The Division of the BC Court of Appeal did not overturn that order. A subsequent application for leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada merited a docket number 35302 but was later dismissed with Costs to the Law Society of BC. Law Society of BC Executive Director Timothy McGee is listed as legal counsel for the Law Society of BC.
In his capacity as Executive Director Mr. McGee would have been aware of the upcoming changes to the Act, but made no effort to notify me as he ought to have done given an appeal was in progress to the Supreme Court of Canada where the lower court Reasons of Grauer J. were directly linked to amendments made.’ “In my upcoming application to the Supreme Court of Canada in (re)considering 35302 I will seek order(s) for extension of time (in the interests of justice, fairness, unique circumstance etc.), to reopen the file and seek a broader appeal of Justice Grauer's Reasons. I will argue that because I only undertook one action, signing my name in the place of my wife in the N.O.C. , in Robbins v BMO Bank then I should not be charged twice from two different subsections of Section 15 in the LPA dealing with “Authority to Practice Law” for only the one offense. Holding for the subsection 15(5) order is particularly unfair when we consider how this subsection 15(5) was later (mis)used to 'delude' Justice Fenlon in a foreclosure matter involving my wife (BCSC H130330 Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp v Ita Robbins) where I attended to seek a right of audience to deal with an unserved notice of hearing, seek an adjournment and obtain a trial date after submission were filed by the respondent cataloging a plethora of reasons which satisfy 'de minimus' standard for trial hearing.
I would submit that your own participation at Division of BC Court of Appeal in Askin v Law Society of British Columbia would alert you to this Stated Case type of situation. This is where the applicant indicated that Shirley Bond was in breach of the LPA in her being a justice as Bond was not lawyer.” “I would also point out Ambrosi v Duckworth where Powers J. of the BC Supreme Court permitted filings (actual procedural filings) in relation to Ambrosi wanting a non lawyer to represent him. In that criminal case the court permitted submissions to be for well over a full year on the matter of right of audience. The individual Ambrosi wanted to represent him had vexatious procedure (litigant) orders in many provinces and a number of concerns about the interests of justice being served.”
In the Cambridge v Robbins matter before Fenlon J., Fenlon admitting to have permitted non lawyers to represent other parties, but refused to permit Glen P. Robbins to represent his wife on the basis of the Grauer J. order introduced to the court not through the process of formal application and evidence, but handed up impromptu from Bakonyi to Fenlon J. 'out of the blue', (almost as if it had been staged). Not only did subsection 15(5) not exist in the form it did in the Grauer matter, it is a provincial statute involving the filing of documents at the provincial registry and is unrelated to matters in right of audience, or at least should not be the legal basis upon which to deny the audience. In any event, the fact that the Legislative changes relating to same subject matter as I was involved with in (S111171) LSBC v Robbins would have surely caused me to take my appeal well beyond the more efficient effort I made on the basis of costs.” “Given the trouble caused by the Grauer J. order and its contemptuous manipulation by members of the Law Society of BC including Michael Kleisinger working in conjunction with you and your office (I use the word collusion in the filing read by Brown J. in Google v Equustek), the setting aside of the order for reasons provided would help to solve the problems associated with both cases S111171 and H130330.”
BCSC H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins: “As indicated, Fenlon J. armed with Reasons for Judgment from S111171, Law Society of BC, and featuring her former employer, Fasken Martineau as legal counsel for LSBC, Fenlon J. can be seen on numerous occasions asserting that it is Justice Grauer who determines I should not have a right of audience. He actually says quite the opposite. Fisher J. in LSBC v Parsons affirms Grauer J. Reasons as this relates to subsection 15(5) of the Act as it separates the role of the solicitor and the barrister. A right of audience relates to the role of the barrister, the person speaking at court, and disregards the actions considered under 15(5) the sole effort of the solicitor or any person or party acting under 15(1).” “Fenlon J. issued a judgment from the bench first under preliminary hearing on right of audience (where she errs at law), and then subsequently makes order for foreclosure (order nisi). The fact here is that the first order occurred before the substantive order for foreclosure. Costs are at scale “A”. The bench order indicates that Glen Robbins attended but no one appeared for the respondents (Ita Robbins et al). Bakonyi for CMIC and Ellis for BMO sign Order Made After Application (in this case the Petition is the application) with respect to the Order Nisi following the May 9, 2013 hearing. On May 27, 2013 these same two LSBC members sign an Order Made After Application in relation to the right of audience of matter and file it with the court despite no court clerk’s notes evidencing that any substantive process of application (Rule 8) was undertaken.” “The BC Court Registry should not have accepted this Order Made After Application as an order relating to the right of audience matter had already been issued by the court. Following a standard redemption period, the petition filed for conduct of sale. At hearing I attended with Enduring Powers of Attorney one from me to my wife and the other from my wife to me, filed at Land Title registry by our attorney Ross Davidson. Master Tokarek who heard the application for conduct of sale and refused to hear from me based on the specific submissions of the duplicate (phony) Order Made Application of May 27, 2013. On January 2, 2014 I attended to BC Supreme Court at Vancouver courthouse to file (and serve) my application to be added as party under H130330. The respondents provided a Consent Order agreeing to my being added as party. Bakonyi for Cambridge did not file a response to application. By not filing this response Cambridge relinquished its opportunity to be notified (or even heard) on the matter. I ended up filing Requisition for hearing date April 23, 2014, having no intention to provide Cambridge with any further notice. On March 20, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada provided Ita Robbins with docket number 35772 in her application for leave to appeal the dismissal of her application at the BC Court of Appeal to extend the time for the filing of leave to appeal from H130330, the order nisi.” At BC Court of Appeal, Ita Robbins had instead filed a conventional appeal for numerous orders other than the order nisi, which have yet to be heard. This conventional filing including the filling out of document indicating that a constitutional question was raised as a consequence of the May 9, 2013 hearing. The decision on right of audience by Fenlon J. made prior to order nisi would comply with this appeal filing. On March 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge filed an application for vacant possession. Bakonyi knew full well that the order for conduct of sale from Master Tokarek had been appealed by Ita Robbins and her co respondent Frana Matich. Ms. Robbins and Mrs. Matich had established April 24, 2014 for the hearing of this appeal. Bakonyi for Cambridge had never filed and served a defense of the appeal. At the April 7, 2014 hearing of the vacant possession application Bakonyi appeared for Cambridge, while Glen Robbins appeared for himself (app to be added as party), while Frana Matich attended for the respondents. Glen Robbins spoke at this hearing on behalf of Frana Matich and by extension his wife Ita Robbins as English if Frana's 2nd language and Ita Robbins was unable to attend. In Rule 8 application submitted by Glen Robbins, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich for the April 7, 2014 hearing a stay of execution order was sought. Kloegman J. adjourned Bakonyi's application and ordered a stay of execution on file H130330 from April 7, 2014 until April 30, 2014. It is important to note that during the April 7, 2014 hearing before Kloegman J., she requested that court clerk phone down to Manager Sue Smolen from the bench and see if there was a hearing date for April 2014. The Court was advised by Trial Scheduling that there were no dates for April and no dates could be given until the 1st week of the next month (May, 2014). So, Trial Scheduling knew what was going on. On April 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (my) (adjourned) April 23, 2014 date and applied to Justice Davies to have my application to be added as party dismissed which it was. On April 24, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (adjourned) April 24, 2014 appeal of the conduct of sale order matter and obtained order for dismissal while the stay of execution was still in force. Following that Bakonyi for Cambridge then obtained a vacant possession order. Both the dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order and vacant possession were granted by Justice Nathan Smith. Smith also signed the vacant possession order (circumventing the filing of the order which would have brought up court clerk's notes), but mysteriously did not sign the dismissal of the appeal of the conduct of sale order at the same time. The dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order was later filed July 14, 2014 and no justice has signed it. Bakonyi for Cambridge obtained 3 orders during a stay of execution. In October 14, 2014 and again in January 2014 Michael Kleisinger of LSBC wrote to me indicating in his letters (provided in subs to Brown J.), that he was aware that I had Enduring Powers of Attorney but indicated that I could not use these in any court because of the Grauer J. order. Kleisinger was promoting a falsehood in actual contempt of the Grauer J. order relating to subsection 15(5). Kleisinger was trying to intimidate me. A few weeks later my wife Ita filed an affidavit with Kleisinger indicating that at all times and places she had commenced her own court matters. Kleisinger knew that GPR’s application to be added as party would discover many of the improprieties of Bakonyi and Cambridge, as well as Ellis and BMO under H130330, Kleisinger then wrote to GPR indicating he was seeking order of vexatious proceeding (litigant is the defamatory style it is provided in) against me. At no time had Kleisinger ever written to me regarding the vexatious litigant matter. At no time under the petition of the Law Society of BC (S111171) v Glen P. Robbins was a vexatious litigant argument ever made, despite both a petition and amended petition being filed, a trial being held, and an appeal before two levels of the BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (35302) having taken place. This covered a period of time from September 2010 until September 2013. (Actually the S.C.C. Docket extends beyond this date.” In February 2014 Kleisinger made a Rule 8 interlocutory application to the court to hear the vexatious litigant matter pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. Obviously, a vexatious litigant matter under that Act differs from matters concerning the LPA as was dealt with under Grauer J. New subject matter and new statute in support would require a brand new petition which would invoke the rules which would have to be filed at court registry for civil filings and not at Trial Scheduling where it was. A Petition has a longer time for originating process than a rule 8 application by two weeks, and would thereafter require a joint application for Trial Date which would have kicked a hearing date down the road until June or July 2018. The Rule 8 application at Trial Scheduling could only be successfully undertaken if a fix were in play. If any ordinary person attempted to file this document at Trial Scheduling they would be told to take the rule 8 application to civil registry and might be further triggered to ask have you already started a file? Since the court con was occurring under file No.: S111171 the Grauer J. matter Kleisinger in concert with his Chief Justice confederate in manipulating court processes Chris Hinkson CJ – these two cheaters were attempting not only to circumvent due process of the rules of court for petitions and applications under petitions – but to add it to the Grauer J, scam well underway in H130330 (Cambridge). This Rule 8 application was not served upon GPR as I was out of town. This application was not provided to anyone at GPR’s residence either. Without proper notice to me an application was then made to you personally seeking a Trial Date which was made for 18 days later and before you (Hinkson CJ) personally. The application documents filed by Kleisinger for LSBC exploited the ambiguity of application as an originating application (petition) or interlocutory application. You have referred to this rule 8 application as a petition which it is not. I believe you permitted this to happen on purpose in order to use your office to help Kleisinger. If he had filed a new petition under a new docket number a trial date would not have been heard for months. (Apparently everyone in the justice system except for you and the LSBC was not aware that there were court shortages). I submit what I believe you and Kleisinger have known all along, and that is the claim for relief under S111171 by way of petition as you describe it could not possibly occur as a petition and an amended petition has already been filed. A rule 8 application cannot be made under S111171 because the amended petition had already been heard by Grauer J. Also, as chief justice you are the equivalent in authority to any justice of the BC Court of Appeal. You were therefore hearing a petition which had already been heard by a fellow justice (Res Judicata, estoppels), and inserting yourself as a court of appeal justice in a matter where the appeal process has already been heard by three levels of appeal. On Thursday, May 1, 2014 I telephoned Sue Smolen as I was directed to do by Kloegman J (at the extinguishment of the stay of execution order) seeking a trial date for the April 23 and April 24 applications and orders obtained illegally during the stay of execution order of Kloegman J. I was not permitted to obtain a date on the basis of your personal instruction to Smolen that I could not make a trial date because of your order of April 10, 2014 vexatious litigant order made by you three days following the Kloegman J. stay of execution order (adjournment). What is even more disconcerting about these events involving your office and your efforts with Kleisinger and LSBC is that Sue Smolen was also the person who told me your reserved judgment would require from 30 to 90 days to decide, likely the longer. It took 20. The inference of accusation loaded into these facts, is the further fact that in January 2014 following the letter of Kleisinger of January 6, 2014 I wrote to you seeking clarification of the Grauer J. order having been made aware that Kleisinger and other members were promoting the Grauer J. order as a basis for not allowing me to speak in any court. It was planned and deliberate contempt of Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment from both provincial and federal State actors. Despite my pleadings to you to include Grauer J. in this, and despite my complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council and the BC Attorney General office and Federal Attorney General office you wrote back to me saying it was inappropriate to deal with Grauer J. on the matter. I take the position that it was at this juncture that you began to collude with Kleisinger agreeing to use your office to help him evade due process of the courts. I remind you that from 1997 to 2000 when you were a lawyer you represented John Motiuk, who was my lawyer in a BC Human Rights complaint. The Law Society was investigating Mr. Motiuk who was later found to have breached the Legal Profession Act for conduct and who was determined by two psychiatrists to be bi polar and off his medication. Lynne Knights of LSBC indicated to me that Mr. Motiuk had no obligation to tell me he was bi polar and off his medication or that he was being investigated to breaches to the LPA. Mr. Motiuk failed to inform me that he had not submitted application to sever applicants at the BCHRT and was instructed not to make the application by (Chris Hinkson) – Solicitor. Later when Mr. Motiuk did inform me (and it was too late to do anything about it before hearing), he informed me that it was his lawyer who told him specifically not to inform me. It turns out that this lawyer is in fact you. In case this appears to be an after the fact accusation I would advise that this was made public in my 2001 BC Supreme Court filing for which no defense was ever filed. Because of this BCHRT debacle between you and Motiuk, I was subsequently listed as a pedophile by that quasi criminal body and listed on first page Google for 3 years. In 2004 then BC Attorney General Geoff Plant wrote to me indicating that the Province of BC had settled with me which was not true. In October 2013 I had written to Kleisinger and to the BC AG of my intention to file for Default Judgment in my 2001 matter, and to pursue a class action against the BC Mortgage Brokers. You spent a great deal of time in cases involving the LSBC. You have history with them. In fact you even presided as original judge in the Trinity Western matter. I have no doubt that you knew of your history with Motiuk and I and realized when Kleisinger and the LSBC came to you for rescue (ED: Having worked with Kleisinger at the same law office for many years), you would be willing to prostitute your own integrity as well as that of your office to come to their assistance in creating the climate of rushed Kangaroo style hearing. In documents filed by Bakonyi to the Supreme Court of Canada in Robbins v Cambridge (35772), Mr. Bakonyi filed and served documents without disclosing as he must, the fact that he breached a stay of execution order to obtain the three (3) orders described herein. The initial response to application for leave features a service date of April 28, 2014 days after the illegal orders are obtained. Another response/reply document was coaxed out of Bakonyi in May 2014 where he referenced the vacant possession order and your (convenient) vexatious procedure documents. Given that I did not meet any of the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada for determining a vexatious procedure in the 1st place, (including the only Costs against me to LSBC which I am seeking to have overturned), and considering that you said at trial you had never heard of a person defending another person being charged with being vexatious, I believe you wantonly and contemptuously elected to help circumvent Kloegman's stay of execution order, and to hold Grauer J'.s order of October 3, 2011 in equal contempt in order to help maintain the cover up of the subprime mortgage scam LSBC lawyers were involved with to the tune of $200 million per year. I (We) will follow due process of these activities at the top court and submit upon recent invite by BC Ombudspersons office (in regard to the registry recklessness relative to BC Court Rules including those for filing court orders). Beyond that I will proceeding with a court action against you, Fenlon J., Nathan Smith and others, as well as against LSBC (part of Federation of Law Societies) and the BC Attorney General (who assisted in mastering mind this) to the Federal Court of Canada. I will seek damages more consistent with United States amounts for damages as against you and would ask that you not dispose of any property. I have confirmed with the Federal Court that Justices may be served in their own name. These court filings will also include submissions exposing the historical relationship between the Chief Justice of the S.C.C., her husband as Executive Director of an organization representing provincial superior court justices, and the Canadian Judicial Council. I would ask that you move as swiftly as you might to rectify matters under S111171 and do so in conjunction with the Chief Justice for the Province or bring in independent counsel to investigate these two files including your participation therein. I would strongly urge you to take immediate steps to remedy these matters and your direct involvement with them. **I enclose a stay of execution order for judicial signature in the Robbins v Cambridge matter. Naturally, once this is filed as it ought to have been in April 2014, the other illicit orders obtained by Bakonyi should be rescinded including the vacant possession order of April 24, 2014 and writ of possession of July 10, 2014, with further order directing that my wife be returned to her property (as it was before) immediately along with her belongings insured for an estimated $300,000. I (We) refuse to acknowledge your order as it exists against me by you, as I believe it now amounts to defamation, a political double down I believe on the pedophile cause of action which I understand you were indirectly responsible for. Lastly, can you explain to me how case file S111171 came to get a new docket Number - ? [BCSC 1310]. Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins (Enduring Power of Attorney for Ita Robbins) cc other institutions/persons/press Glen P. Robbins responds to BC Ombudsperson on complaint matters-Lawyer John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson (QC) (now chief justice) BCHRT and lawyers Tom Path, Tonie Beharell, & BCSC Master McNaughton May 16, 2016 https://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1094.html Office of the Ombudsperson 947 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8V 3K3 Attention: Ombudsperson (Jay Chalke) RE: Failure to properly deal with appeal from decision of Law Society of British Columbia in relation to matters involving John Motiuk legal counsel – failure to follow instructions, complaint against is lawyer Chris Hinkson QC, matters of 8 boxes of investigative material 1997-2000 involving Law Society of BC, John Motiuk (mentally ill lawyer {bi polar off medication}, whether or not Chris Hinkson solicitor client privilege is valid, complaints against Tom Patch (formerly BCHRT), Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell, Heather McNaughton and others. CBC – “Jay Chalke is a member of the Law Society of British Columbia and is a former Governor of the Law Foundation of BC” Dear Sir: I am writing this response to your offices most recent letter relating to the above captioned complaint/appeal from Law Society of BC I am writing to your recent letter wherein I am appealing the decision and actions of the Law Society of British Columbia, in terms of my past lawyer John Motiuk, his mental illness whilst in custody of my BCHRT file, the actions of Chris Hinkson QC (as he was then), and the Law Society of B.C. I see nothing in your letter which properly addressed the issue of the appeal in relation to my rights under the Legal Professions Act. First. Mr. Motiuk was instructed to vigorously attend against any joinder of the complaint of the five women (only four testified). These instructions were not followed. A vigorous defense in pursuit of the objective of making separate trials for each woman (to excuse the plethora of inconsistencies and lies) would have included filing submissions as directed by Tribunal member and if unsuccessful appealing that order. The matter of joinder was not raised by application but by the Tribunal itself. Mr. Motiuk received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for his work and his hiring was with the clear understanding that I wanted the women's testimony exposed as dishonest. Mr. Motiuk was also directed that in part I wanted the women's lawyers exposed at developing and securing perjured testimony. Mr. Motiuk failed to properly take instruction, and at no time did he advise me otherwise. In fact, Mr. Motiuk was the originator of this legal strategy. Chris Hinkson, Mr. Motiuks' legal counsel has a duty to solicitor client privilege. Mr. Hinkson is not entitled to break the law in his capacity as Mr. Motiuk's lawyer. If it can shown that Mr. Hinkson directed John Motiuk to 'throw the case' in exchange for the Law Society of BC going easy on him, and in order to assist the BC HRT and save from complete loss of credibility (which would have surely accompanied the exposure of Canada's only sexual harassment case where five women were alleged to have been harassed by staring each and every day for literally a year and one half in front of their legal employer (Mitchell Tannis and not me), and where no independent credible witnesses could collaborate their stories out of 40 employees) then solicitor client privilege would not attach. As you have been aware the Law Society of BC has 8 boxes full of material relating to the investigation of John Motiuk involving matters pertaining to his being decertified and later an order that he not be authorized to practice law. This latter order occurred following Mr. Motiuks' failure to follow instruction in matter of joinder, and was chronologically directed related to events involving disclosure of documents. This investigative material is relevant from 1997 to 2000. This is the same period in which Chris Hinkson QC was his lawyer, and which also covers the same period that John Motiuk was my legal counsel on the BCHRT matters. The information pertaining to the outstanding litigation I have at BC Supreme Court since May 2001 can be reviewed online at www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_563.html “A Holocaust in Canada-The cruxification of Glen P. Robbins, Book 1 & www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_569.html “A Holocaust Made in Canada – The crucifixion of Glen P. Robbins, Book 2 (carry over from one). These 'pleadings' transcribed for the general public include verbatim description of the legal facts involved in this case include the method of use of lies, changing of stories from one point in process of BC Human Rights Commission (as it was then) to BC Human Rights Tribunal. I would also call your attention to the fact that the alleged 'pdf' of the Reasons of Tom Patch have been altered to remove the fact that the Tribunal member Tom Patch was sick, that one of the girls (Sara Clemente) was also sick on the day of the hearing, and that Tom Patch acknowledged that a BC Supreme Court action had been filed in relation to the matter. He ought to have adjourned the matter (given it had been adjourned many times already by BCHRT). On what lawful basis can these Reasons be edited out years after the fact? I have indicated that Freedom of Information should be able to go through the 8 boxes of material involving John Motiuk, his lawyer Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of British Columbia. The material in these boxes must also be provided to the BC Ombudspersons Office. As you are aware I am also making accusations in relation to the circumstances of the matter invoked by this appeal in relation to Mr. Motiuk and his relationship to other persons members of the Law Society of BC, as this relates to current accusations made against the Law Society of BC and lawyer Michael Kleisinger and his involvement with Christopher Hinkson in his current capacity as BC Supreme Court Justice. This matter involves lower court case BCSC S111171 and its eventual completion at Supreme Court of Canada (SCC docket 35302). My accusation is that Mr. Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of BC colluded with the Chief Justice (Chris Hinkson QC) to proceed with a trial hearing on the basis of an interlocutory application for final order under BCSC S111171 rather than proceed by originating petition as it must. These actions of a clear breach in the administration of justice, abuse of power and abuse of office as well as breach of trust (as both Mr. Kleisinger and Mr. Hinkson received an indirect benefit in the process). Mr. Hinkson produced a vexatious procedure order against me (which was intended to take a long time to decide according to Hinkson CJ, and 3 months or more according to Trial Scheduling Sue Smolen) on March 21, 2010. It is my contention that Hinkson CJ made his order on April 10, 2014 in order to help cover up the fraud of Ronald Bakonyi & Robert Ellis under foreclosure matter BCSC H130330 where Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis filed an Order Made After Application on May 31, 2013 (which application and order never occurred), and where the presiding Justice Fenlon J. refused a right of audience to me on the basis of an order of Justice Grauer in Law Society of BC v Glen Robbins (BCSC S111171) (this is the matter which was concluded and final at Supreme Court of Canada) and the use of this forged order to obtain conduct of sale on December 9, 2013 before BC Supreme Court Master Tokarek. An appeal was filed by my wife Ita Robbins of the conduct of sale order with hearing April 24, 2014. An application was made out of order by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of Cambridge Mortgage for vacant possession on April 7, 2014 which was adjourned by Madame Justice Kloegman. Kloegman J. also made order for stay of the conduct of sale order (and appeal) until April 30, 2014 in order to permit the obtaining of a trial date on May 1, 2014 (the Vancouver Trial registry takes hearing dates over 2 hours the first week of each month only). The trial hearing was required to deal with the aforementioned appeal of the conduct of sale order, an application by me to be added as party and Mr. Bakonyi's vacant possession order. The Vancouver registry was providing hearing dates (it turned out) in late June and July. Under BCSC action No.: 149328 my wife and I had filed suit in New Westminster Supreme Court 149328 my wife and I had filed suit against Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation and its sister company Peet & Cowan Financial Services. In November 2013 within the BC Civil Rules we had filed for Mediation. The BC Attorney General Regulations along with BC Civil Rules makes it mandatory to attend Mediation. Although it is not required to file the Mediation document, we did under 149328 which can be easily determined through online services. Ronald Bakonyi failed to acknowledge the Mediation (although he is on the court record admitting service). I have filed complaints to the Law Society of BC against Michael Kleisinger, Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis (BMO Bank), in relation to these matters. Mr. Bakonyi then took his ex parte vacant possession order while a stay order was in existence (see BCSC Court Clerk notes desk 210). and sent bailiffs and RCMP to take the home after attempting to negotiate the removal of both if we would consent to the conduct of sale and drop the litigation. Chris Hinkson's earlier than expected order of April 10, 2014 was then used by Ronald Bakonyi in his obtaining the illegal vacant possession order. The order of Kloegman J. drafted by Mr. Bakonyi did not include the stay order until April 30, 2014 but did include the evidence of the forged order made under BCSC H130330 of May 31, 2013 which stated that “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of (his wife) Ita Robbins”. An application was never made with regard to right of audience and no such application for order could be made. A right of audience is determined by leave request of the person seeking the right and constitutional discretion of the decision maker, in this case the justice. One justice cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of another. When Mr. Bakonyi obtained his illegal order for vacant possession after writing his second fraudulent court order (neglecting the stay order) the presiding justice Smith J. ought to have recognized the flaw with the “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of Ita Robbins...” but did not recognize that order in his comments. Instead he indicated that he would have refused to hear from Glen Robbins on the basis of the Hinkson CJ orders. My accusation against Hinkson CJ that I intend to prove is that he was responsible for the matters involving John Motiuk and the BC HRT ultimately resulting in my being listed as a pedophile for three years, and then later when I had threatened to sue the Law Society of BC, again came to their rescue by permitting the severe breach in administration of justice and abuse of office to help to produce a second defamation and keep me from defending myself. Although I realize these latter accusations against justices including the Chief Justice are not within the authority of the Ombudsperson's office, those complaints (appeals) from the jurisdiction of the Law Society of BC in relation to lawyers, John Motiuk, lawyer member Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of BC relating to the BCHRT matter presenting before you are within your jurisdiction. I would ask that you attend to the complaints made against John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson, Tribunal Members Tom Patch, Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell (in her capacity as opposing counsel), as well as BCSC Master Heather McNaughton who though made aware of the issues including the pedophile defamation on 1st page Google refused to protect the site at BCHRT (or place meta tags around it) as was later done by BC Attorney General Geoff Plant. In context of this latter statement I would ask the BC Ombudsperson office to investigate a reference made by AG Plant at the time he acknowledged that “Meta Tags” would be placed around the offensive language, that he also believed that the Government of BC had settled legal compensation with me, when in fact it had not. I would advise that I am seeking Intervener status at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Google v Equustek case relating to Jurisdiction of provincial legislation and free speech. I will be including much of this information beyond the arguments I intend to make in the public interest generally and in revealing a general lack of credibility in the BC Civil Justice system which I am hopeful will showcase a complete lack of independence in the making the of judicial appointments, some members of the judiciary, who I anticipate will be shown to give up the standard expected of them to attain other objectives including those described herein. Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins The Notice Claim IRobbins and another, Glen P. Robbins file Notice of Claim against Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan Financial, Her Majesty (BC) and others (BCSC 149328) In March 2013 IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins file an action against parties referenced including Cambridge Mortgage. This occurs at or about the same time Cambridge has filed its petition for foreclosure in the incorrect registry at Vancouver courthouse at 800 Smithe Street. The Notice of Claim against Cambridge Mortgage is intended to serve as the action (ED: expected to be ordered from trial ordered as a consequence of the triable issues from petition H130330 under BCSC 149328). An application is made by IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins for hearing March 2015 BCSC 149328 (ED: 8 months after illegal theft of IRobbins property by the State and the State police). GPR, IRobbins & FM had established the Notice of Claim BCSC 149328 (ED: Again, at the appropriate court registry with a view to expediting claim once dirty petition was discovered). The application of GPR, IRobbins & FM August 20, 2014 includes a hearing date ‘down the road a year’ to accommodate the issues and problems (not) the fault of GPR, IRobbins or FM. (ED: GPR, IRobbins and FM the only sensible ones in this). IRobbins – Glen P. Robbins file a Requisition necessary to adjourn their application March19, 2015. No response had been filed within the time required (or ever) by Cambridge Mortgage – so no consent was thus required to adjourn. Chief Justice Hinkson is incorrect in his order, on page 1 Google of March 24, 2015 order declaring the application a nullity on the basis of the kangaroo Court crooked hearing cooked up under S111171 between fellow ‘law society member’ Michael Kleisinger’. All court orders were properly obliged – the exercise was further ‘bait’ for the ‘big court tuna’. CJ Hinkson rose to the ‘bait’ like a big blue bass and exposed the fulsomeness nature of his complicity to protect the criminal lenders and law society members (ED:I see the colour orange wait…. I am seeing a jumpsuit as well). The application of August 2014 did in fact consider Hinkson’s April 10, 2014 order of April 10, 2014 limits the number of pages of GPR’s leave application affidavit to a number of pages as prescribed by order. Hinkson made no order relating to number of exhibits that GPR could file. GPR, IRobbins and FM were unaware of any order of Madame Justice Arnold Bailey of July 22, 2014 (noted in the wife beaters Order of March 25, 2015) as they had been forcibly removed in the State sponsored home invasion at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane – AND BAKONYI CAMBRIDGE served its application to obtain this order to an empty house (ED(1): 1355 Honeysuckle Lane). (ED(2): Can this story get any more disgusting?) The Requisition (ED: technically an initiating {commencement} document similar to notice of claim or petition, but generally used to change hearing dates and such). An affidavit is required with Requisition filing. The Requisition is accepted for filing by the New Westminster courthouse March 19, 2014 adjourning the hearing date slated for the next week. It is filed absolutely perfectly AND in compliance with Rules and even the crooked orders of Hinkson by Glen P. Robbins, IRobbins and FM. Cambridge Mortgage lawyer Bakonyi attends to IRobbins adjourned hearing date obtaining an (illegal) order for dismissal of the claim against it. Chief Justice Hinkson steps in (ED: unsure of the steadiness) on March 25, 2015 and orders the filed Requisition of IRobbins to be struck from the record despite its filing being in perfect condition of the Orders already made by the corrupt justice. He backdates this order to March 19, 2015 to knock out the Requisition. (ED: think sport of Curling). Hinkson CJ refers to the Requisition as an application –and just as he didn’t seem to notice the difference between an interlocutory application and a commencement document(petition) in LSBC v GPR (S111171) – CJ Hinkson was interfering with a Requisition properly filed adjourning a bona fide application with his new orders (ED: cooked up Kangaroo court order established with his young prodigy – now Enforcement Officer – with LSBC (on Hinkson’s recommendation) one of the main driving forces of the fraud- Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC) – further enabling Cambridge’s fraud. Hinkson CJ was more interested in covering up Bakonyi and Cambridge’s crimes than in anything to do with the interests of justice or his obligation to be concerned with IRobbins or Glen P. Robbins Charter Rights. Hinkson CJ cannot remain in office one more day.
Bakonyi for CMIC and Ellis for BMO sign Order Made After Application (in this case the Petition is the application) with respect to the Order Nisi following the May 9, 2013 hearing. On May 27, 2013 these same two LSBC members sign an Order Made After Application in relation to the right of audience of matter and file it with the court despite no court clerk’s notes evidencing that any substantive process of application (Rule 8) was undertaken.” “The BC Court Registry should not have accepted this Order Made After Application as an order relating to the right of audience matter had already been issued by the court. Following a standard redemption period, the petition filed for conduct of sale. At hearing I attended with Enduring Powers of Attorney one from me to my wife and the other from my wife to me, filed at Land Title registry by our attorney Ross Davidson. Master Tokarek who heard the application for conduct of sale and refused to hear from me based on the specific submissions of the duplicate (phony) Order Made Application of May 27, 2013. On January 2, 2014 I attended to BC Supreme Court at Vancouver courthouse to file (and serve) my application to be added as party under H130330. The respondents provided a Consent Order agreeing to my being added as party. Bakonyi for Cambridge did not file a response to application. By not filing this response Cambridge relinquished its opportunity to be notified (or even heard) on the matter. I ended up filing Requisition for hearing date April 23, 2014, having no intention to provide Cambridge with any further notice. On March 20, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada provided Ita Robbins with docket number 35772 in her application for leave to appeal the dismissal of her application at the BC Court of Appeal to extend the time for the filing of leave to appeal from H130330, the order nisi.” At BC Court of Appeal, Ita Robbins had instead filed a conventional appeal for numerous orders other than the order nisi, which have yet to be heard. This conventional filing including the filling out of document indicating that a constitutional question was raised as a consequence of the May 9, 2013 hearing. The decision on right of audience by Fenlon J. made prior to order nisi would comply with this appeal filing. On March 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge filed an application for vacant possession. Bakonyi knew full well that the order for conduct of sale from Master Tokarek had been appealed by Ita Robbins and her co respondent Frana Matich. Ms. Robbins and Mrs. Matich had established April 24, 2014 for the hearing of this appeal. Bakonyi for Cambridge had never filed and served a defense of the appeal. At the April 7, 2014 hearing of the vacant possession application Bakonyi appeared for Cambridge, while Glen Robbins appeared for himself (app to be added as party), while Frana Matich attended for the respondents. Glen Robbins spoke at this hearing on behalf of Frana Matich and by extension his wife Ita Robbins as English if Frana's 2nd language and Ita Robbins was unable to attend. In Rule 8 application submitted by Glen Robbins, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich for the April 7, 2014 hearing a stay of execution order was sought. Kloegman J. adjourned Bakonyi's application and ordered a stay of execution on file H130330 from April 7, 2014 until April 30, 2014. It is important to note that during the April 7, 2014 hearing before Kloegman J., she requested that court clerk phone down to Manager Sue Smolen from the bench and see if there was a hearing date for April 2014. The Court was advised by Trial Scheduling that there were no dates for April and no dates could be given until the 1st week of the next month (May, 2014). So, Trial Scheduling knew what was going on. On April 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (my) (adjourned) April 23, 2014 date and applied to Justice Davies to have my application to be added as party dismissed which it was. On April 24, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (adjourned) April 24, 2014 appeal of the conduct of sale order matter and obtained order for dismissal while the stay of execution was still in force. Following that Bakonyi for Cambridge then obtained a vacant possession order. Both the dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order and vacant possession were granted by Justice Nathan Smith. Smith also signed the vacant possession order (circumventing the filing of the order which would have brought up court clerk's notes), but mysteriously did not sign the dismissal of the appeal of the conduct of sale order at the same time. The dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order was later filed July 14, 2014 and no justice has signed it. Bakonyi for Cambridge obtained 3 orders during a stay of execution. In October 14, 2014 and again in January 2014 Michael Kleisinger of LSBC wrote to me indicating in his letters (provided in subs to Brown J.), that he was aware that I had Enduring Powers of Attorney but indicated that I could not use these in any court because of the Grauer J. order. Kleisinger was promoting a falsehood in actual contempt of the Grauer J. order relating to subsection 15(5). Kleisinger was trying to intimidate me. A few weeks later my wife Ita filed an affidavit with Kleisinger indicating that at all times and places she had commenced her own court matters. Kleisinger knew that GPR’s application to be added as party would discover many of the improprieties of Bakonyi and Cambridge, as well as Ellis and BMO under H130330, Kleisinger then wrote to GPR indicating he was seeking order of vexatious proceeding (litigant is the defamatory style it is provided in) against me. At no time had Kleisinger ever written to me regarding the vexatious litigant matter. At no time under the petition of the Law Society of BC (S111171) v Glen P. Robbins was a vexatious litigant argument ever made, despite both a petition and amended petition being filed, a trial being held, and an appeal before two levels of the BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (35302) having taken place. This covered a period of time from September 2010 until September 2013. (Actually the S.C.C. Docket extends beyond this date.” In February 2014 Kleisinger made a Rule 8 interlocutory application to the court to hear the vexatious litigant matter pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. Obviously, a vexatious litigant matter under that Act differs from matters concerning the LPA as was dealt with under Grauer J. New subject matter and new statute in support would require a brand new petition which would invoke the rules which would have to be filed at court registry for civil filings and not at Trial Scheduling where it was. A Petition has a longer time for originating process than a rule 8 application by two weeks, and would thereafter require a joint application for Trial Date which would have kicked a hearing date down the road until June or July 2018. The Rule 8 application at Trial Scheduling could only be successfully undertaken if a fix were in play. If any ordinary person attempted to file this document at Trial Scheduling they would be told to take the rule 8 application to civil registry and might be further triggered to ask have you already started a file? Since the court con was occurring under file No.: S111171 the Grauer J. matter Kleisinger in concert with his Chief Justice confederate in manipulating court processes Chris Hinkson CJ – these two cheaters were attempting not only to circumvent due process of the rules of court for petitions and applications under petitions – but to add it to the Grauer J, scam well underway in H130330 (Cambridge). This Rule 8 application was not served upon GPR as I was out of town. This application was not provided to anyone at GPR’s residence either. Without proper notice to me an application was then made to you personally seeking a Trial Date which was made for 18 days later and before you (Hinkson CJ) personally. The application documents filed by Kleisinger for LSBC exploited the ambiguity of application as an originating application (petition) or interlocutory application. You have referred to this rule 8 application as a petition which it is not. I believe you permitted this to happen on purpose in order to use your office to help Kleisinger. If he had filed a new petition under a new docket number a trial date would not have been heard for months. (Apparently everyone in the justice system except for you and the LSBC was not aware that there were court shortages). I submit what I believe you and Kleisinger have known all along, and that is the claim for relief under S111171 by way of petition as you describe it could not possibly occur as a petition and an amended petition has already been filed. A rule 8 application cannot be made under S111171 because the amended petition had already been heard by Grauer J. Also, as chief justice you are the equivalent in authority to any justice of the BC Court of Appeal. You were therefore hearing a petition which had already been heard by a fellow justice (Res Judicata, estoppels), and inserting yourself as a court of appeal justice in a matter where the appeal process has already been heard by three levels of appeal. On Thursday, May 1, 2014 I telephoned Sue Smolen as I was directed to do by Kloegman J (at the extinguishment of the stay of execution order) seeking a trial date for the April 23 and April 24 applications and orders obtained illegally during the stay of execution order of Kloegman J. I was not permitted to obtain a date on the basis of your personal instruction to Smolen that I could not make a trial date because of your order of April 10, 2014 vexatious litigant order made by you three days following the Kloegman J. stay of execution order (adjournment). What is even more disconcerting about these events involving your office and your efforts with Kleisinger and LSBC is that Sue Smolen was also the person who told me your reserved judgment would require from 30 to 90 days to decide, likely the longer. It took 20. The inference of accusation loaded into these facts, is the further fact that in January 2014 following the letter of Kleisinger of January 6, 2014 I wrote to you seeking clarification of the Grauer J. order having been made aware that Kleisinger and other members were promoting the Grauer J. order as a basis for not allowing me to speak in any court. It was planned and deliberate contempt of Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment from both provincial and federal State actors. Despite my pleadings to you to include Grauer J. in this, and despite my complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council and the BC Attorney General office and Federal Attorney General office you wrote back to me saying it was inappropriate to deal with Grauer J. on the matter. I take the position that it was at this juncture that you began to collude with Kleisinger agreeing to use your office to help him evade due process of the courts. I remind you that from 1997 to 2000 when you were a lawyer you represented John Motiuk, who was my lawyer in a BC Human Rights complaint. The Law Society was investigating Mr. Motiuk who was later found to have breached the Legal Profession Act for conduct and who was determined by two psychiatrists to be bi polar and off his medication. Lynne Knights of LSBC indicated to me that Mr. Motiuk had no obligation to tell me he was bi polar and off his medication or that he was being investigated to breaches to the LPA. Mr. Motiuk failed to inform me that he had not submitted application to sever applicants at the BCHRT and was instructed not to make the application by (Chris Hinkson) – Solicitor. Later when Mr. Motiuk did inform me (and it was too late to do anything about it before hearing), he informed me that it was his lawyer who told him specifically not to inform me. It turns out that this lawyer is in fact you. In case this appears to be an after the fact accusation I would advise that this was made public in my 2001 BC Supreme Court filing for which no defense was ever filed. Because of this BCHRT debacle between you and Motiuk, I was subsequently listed as a pedophile by that quasi criminal body and listed on first page Google for 3 years. In 2004 then BC Attorney General Geoff Plant wrote to me indicating that the Province of BC had settled with me which was not true. In October 2013 I had written to Kleisinger and to the BC AG of my intention to file for Default Judgment in my 2001 matter, and to pursue a class action against the BC Mortgage Brokers. You spent a great deal of time in cases involving the LSBC. You have history with them. In fact you even presided as original judge in the Trinity Western matter. I have no doubt that you knew of your history with Motiuk and I and realized when Kleisinger and the LSBC came to you for rescue (ED: Having worked with Kleisinger at the same law office for many years), you would be willing to prostitute your own integrity as well as that of your office to come to their assistance in creating the climate of rushed Kangaroo style hearing. In documents filed by Bakonyi to the Supreme Court of Canada in Robbins v Cambridge (35772), Mr. Bakonyi filed and served documents without disclosing as he must, the fact that he breached a stay of execution order to obtain the three (3) orders described herein. The initial response to application for leave features a service date of April 28, 2014 days after the illegal orders are obtained. Another response/reply document was coaxed out of Bakonyi in May 2014 where he referenced the vacant possession order and your (convenient) vexatious procedure documents. Given that I did not meet any of the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada for determining a vexatious procedure in the 1st place, (including the only Costs against me to LSBC which I am seeking to have overturned), and considering that you said at trial you had never heard of a person defending another person being charged with being vexatious, I believe you wantonly and contemptuously elected to help circumvent Kloegman's stay of execution order, and to hold Grauer J'.s order of October 3, 2011 in equal contempt in order to help maintain the cover up of the subprime mortgage scam LSBC lawyers were involved with to the tune of $200 million per year. I (We) will follow due process of these activities at the top court and submit upon recent invite by BC Ombudspersons office (in regard to the registry recklessness relative to BC Court Rules including those for filing court orders). Beyond that I will proceeding with a court action against you, Fenlon J., Nathan Smith and others, as well as against LSBC (part of Federation of Law Societies) and the BC Attorney General (who assisted in mastering mind this) to the Federal Court of Canada. I will seek damages more consistent with United States amounts for damages as against you and would ask that you not dispose of any property. I have confirmed with the Federal Court that Justices may be served in their own name. These court filings will also include submissions exposing the historical relationship between the Chief Justice of the S.C.C., her husband as Executive Director of an organization representing provincial superior court justices, and the Canadian Judicial Council. I would ask that you move as swiftly as you might to rectify matters under S111171 and do so in conjunction with the Chief Justice for the Province or bring in independent counsel to investigate these two files including your participation therein. I would strongly urge you to take immediate steps to remedy these matters and your direct involvement with them. **I enclose a stay of execution order for judicial signature in the Robbins v Cambridge matter. Naturally, once this is filed as it ought to have been in April 2014, the other illicit orders obtained by Bakonyi should be rescinded including the vacant possession order of April 24, 2014 and writ of possession of July 10, 2014, with further order directing that my wife be returned to her property (as it was before) immediately along with her belongings insured for an estimated $300,000. I (We) refuse to acknowledge your order as it exists against me by you, as I believe it now amounts to defamation, a political double down I believe on the pedophile cause of action which I understand you were indirectly responsible for. Lastly, can you explain to me how case file S111171 came to get a new docket Number - ? [BCSC 1310]. Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins (Enduring Power of Attorney for Ita Robbins) cc other institutions/persons/press Glen P. Robbins responds to BC Ombudsperson on complaint matters-Lawyer John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson (QC) (now chief justice) BCHRT and lawyers Tom Path, Tonie Beharell, & BCSC Master McNaughton May 16, 2016 https://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1094.html Office of the Ombudsperson 947 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8V 3K3 Attention: Ombudsperson (Jay Chalke) RE: Failure to properly deal with appeal from decision of Law Society of British Columbia in relation to matters involving John Motiuk legal counsel – failure to follow instructions, complaint against is lawyer Chris Hinkson QC, matters of 8 boxes of investigative material 1997-2000 involving Law Society of BC, John Motiuk (mentally ill lawyer {bi polar off medication}, whether or not Chris Hinkson solicitor client privilege is valid, complaints against Tom Patch (formerly BCHRT), Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell, Heather McNaughton and others. CBC – “Jay Chalke is a member of the Law Society of British Columbia and is a former Governor of the Law Foundation of BC” Dear Sir: I am writing this response to your offices most recent letter relating to the above captioned complaint/appeal from Law Society of BC I am writing to your recent letter wherein I am appealing the decision and actions of the Law Society of British Columbia, in terms of my past lawyer John Motiuk, his mental illness whilst in custody of my BCHRT file, the actions of Chris Hinkson QC (as he was then), and the Law Society of B.C. I see nothing in your letter which properly addressed the issue of the appeal in relation to my rights under the Legal Professions Act. First. Mr. Motiuk was instructed to vigorously attend against any joinder of the complaint of the five women (only four testified). These instructions were not followed. A vigorous defense in pursuit of the objective of making separate trials for each woman (to excuse the plethora of inconsistencies and lies) would have included filing submissions as directed by Tribunal member and if unsuccessful appealing that order. The matter of joinder was not raised by application but by the Tribunal itself. Mr. Motiuk received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for his work and his hiring was with the clear understanding that I wanted the women's testimony exposed as dishonest. Mr. Motiuk was also directed that in part I wanted the women's lawyers exposed at developing and securing perjured testimony. Mr. Motiuk failed to properly take instruction, and at no time did he advise me otherwise. In fact, Mr. Motiuk was the originator of this legal strategy. Chris Hinkson, Mr. Motiuks' legal counsel has a duty to solicitor client privilege. Mr. Hinkson is not entitled to break the law in his capacity as Mr. Motiuk's lawyer. If it can shown that Mr. Hinkson directed John Motiuk to 'throw the case' in exchange for the Law Society of BC going easy on him, and in order to assist the BC HRT and save from complete loss of credibility (which would have surely accompanied the exposure of Canada's only sexual harassment case where five women were alleged to have been harassed by staring each and every day for literally a year and one half in front of their legal employer (Mitchell Tannis and not me), and where no independent credible witnesses could collaborate their stories out of 40 employees) then solicitor client privilege would not attach. As you have been aware the Law Society of BC has 8 boxes full of material relating to the investigation of John Motiuk involving matters pertaining to his being decertified and later an order that he not be authorized to practice law. This latter order occurred following Mr. Motiuks' failure to follow instruction in matter of joinder, and was chronologically directed related to events involving disclosure of documents. This investigative material is relevant from 1997 to 2000. This is the same period in which Chris Hinkson QC was his lawyer, and which also covers the same period that John Motiuk was my legal counsel on the BCHRT matters. The information pertaining to the outstanding litigation I have at BC Supreme Court since May 2001 can be reviewed online at www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_563.html “A Holocaust in Canada-The cruxification of Glen P. Robbins, Book 1 & www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_569.html “A Holocaust Made in Canada – The crucifixion of Glen P. Robbins, Book 2 (carry over from one). These 'pleadings' transcribed for the general public include verbatim description of the legal facts involved in this case include the method of use of lies, changing of stories from one point in process of BC Human Rights Commission (as it was then) to BC Human Rights Tribunal. I would also call your attention to the fact that the alleged 'pdf' of the Reasons of Tom Patch have been altered to remove the fact that the Tribunal member Tom Patch was sick, that one of the girls (Sara Clemente) was also sick on the day of the hearing, and that Tom Patch acknowledged that a BC Supreme Court action had been filed in relation to the matter. He ought to have adjourned the matter (given it had been adjourned many times already by BCHRT). On what lawful basis can these Reasons be edited out years after the fact? I have indicated that Freedom of Information should be able to go through the 8 boxes of material involving John Motiuk, his lawyer Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of British Columbia. The material in these boxes must also be provided to the BC Ombudspersons Office. As you are aware I am also making accusations in relation to the circumstances of the matter invoked by this appeal in relation to Mr. Motiuk and his relationship to other persons members of the Law Society of BC, as this relates to current accusations made against the Law Society of BC and lawyer Michael Kleisinger and his involvement with Christopher Hinkson in his current capacity as BC Supreme Court Justice. This matter involves lower court case BCSC S111171 and its eventual completion at Supreme Court of Canada (SCC docket 35302). My accusation is that Mr. Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of BC colluded with the Chief Justice (Chris Hinkson QC) to proceed with a trial hearing on the basis of an interlocutory application for final order under BCSC S111171 rather than proceed by originating petition as it must. These actions of a clear breach in the administration of justice, abuse of power and abuse of office as well as breach of trust (as both Mr. Kleisinger and Mr. Hinkson received an indirect benefit in the process). Mr. Hinkson produced a vexatious procedure order against me (which was intended to take a long time to decide according to Hinkson CJ, and 3 months or more according to Trial Scheduling Sue Smolen) on March 21, 2010. It is my contention that Hinkson CJ made his order on April 10, 2014 in order to help cover up the fraud of Ronald Bakonyi & Robert Ellis under foreclosure matter BCSC H130330 where Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis filed an Order Made After Application on May 31, 2013 (which application and order never occurred), and where the presiding Justice Fenlon J. refused a right of audience to me on the basis of an order of Justice Grauer in Law Society of BC v Glen Robbins (BCSC S111171) (this is the matter which was concluded and final at Supreme Court of Canada) and the use of this forged order to obtain conduct of sale on December 9, 2013 before BC Supreme Court Master Tokarek. An appeal was filed by my wife Ita Robbins of the conduct of sale order with hearing April 24, 2014. An application was made out of order by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of Cambridge Mortgage for vacant possession on April 7, 2014 which was adjourned by Madame Justice Kloegman. Kloegman J. also made order for stay of the conduct of sale order (and appeal) until April 30, 2014 in order to permit the obtaining of a trial date on May 1, 2014 (the Vancouver Trial registry takes hearing dates over 2 hours the first week of each month only). The trial hearing was required to deal with the aforementioned appeal of the conduct of sale order, an application by me to be added as party and Mr. Bakonyi's vacant possession order. The Vancouver registry was providing hearing dates (it turned out) in late June and July. Under BCSC action No.: 149328 my wife and I had filed suit in New Westminster Supreme Court 149328 my wife and I had filed suit against Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation and its sister company Peet & Cowan Financial Services. In November 2013 within the BC Civil Rules we had filed for Mediation. The BC Attorney General Regulations along with BC Civil Rules makes it mandatory to attend Mediation. Although it is not required to file the Mediation document, we did under 149328 which can be easily determined through online services. Ronald Bakonyi failed to acknowledge the Mediation (although he is on the court record admitting service). I have filed complaints to the Law Society of BC against Michael Kleisinger, Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis (BMO Bank), in relation to these matters. Mr. Bakonyi then took his ex parte vacant possession order while a stay order was in existence (see BCSC Court Clerk notes desk 210). and sent bailiffs and RCMP to take the home after attempting to negotiate the removal of both if we would consent to the conduct of sale and drop the litigation. Chris Hinkson's earlier than expected order of April 10, 2014 was then used by Ronald Bakonyi in his obtaining the illegal vacant possession order. The order of Kloegman J. drafted by Mr. Bakonyi did not include the stay order until April 30, 2014 but did include the evidence of the forged order made under BCSC H130330 of May 31, 2013 which stated that “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of (his wife) Ita Robbins”. An application was never made with regard to right of audience and no such application for order could be made. A right of audience is determined by leave request of the person seeking the right and constitutional discretion of the decision maker, in this case the justice. One justice cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of another. When Mr. Bakonyi obtained his illegal order for vacant possession after writing his second fraudulent court order (neglecting the stay order) the presiding justice Smith J. ought to have recognized the flaw with the “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of Ita Robbins...” but did not recognize that order in his comments. Instead he indicated that he would have refused to hear from Glen Robbins on the basis of the Hinkson CJ orders. My accusation against Hinkson CJ that I intend to prove is that he was responsible for the matters involving John Motiuk and the BC HRT ultimately resulting in my being listed as a pedophile for three years, and then later when I had threatened to sue the Law Society of BC, again came to their rescue by permitting the severe breach in administration of justice and abuse of office to help to produce a second defamation and keep me from defending myself. Although I realize these latter accusations against justices including the Chief Justice are not within the authority of the Ombudsperson's office, those complaints (appeals) from the jurisdiction of the Law Society of BC in relation to lawyers, John Motiuk, lawyer member Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of BC relating to the BCHRT matter presenting before you are within your jurisdiction. I would ask that you attend to the complaints made against John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson, Tribunal Members Tom Patch, Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell (in her capacity as opposing counsel), as well as BCSC Master Heather McNaughton who though made aware of the issues including the pedophile defamation on 1st page Google refused to protect the site at BCHRT (or place meta tags around it) as was later done by BC Attorney General Geoff Plant. In context of this latter statement I would ask the BC Ombudsperson office to investigate a reference made by AG Plant at the time he acknowledged that “Meta Tags” would be placed around the offensive language, that he also believed that the Government of BC had settled legal compensation with me, when in fact it had not. I would advise that I am seeking Intervener status at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Google v Equustek case relating to Jurisdiction of provincial legislation and free speech. I will be including much of this information beyond the arguments I intend to make in the public interest generally and in revealing a general lack of credibility in the BC Civil Justice system which I am hopeful will showcase a complete lack of independence in the making the of judicial appointments, some members of the judiciary, who I anticipate will be shown to give up the standard expected of them to attain other objectives including those described herein. Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins The Notice Claim IRobbins and another, Glen P. Robbins file Notice of Claim against Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan Financial, Her Majesty (BC) and others (BCSC 149328) In March 2013 IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins file an action against parties referenced including Cambridge Mortgage. This occurs at or about the same time Cambridge has filed its petition for foreclosure in the incorrect registry at Vancouver courthouse at 800 Smithe Street. The Notice of Claim against Cambridge Mortgage is intended to serve as the action (ED: expected to be ordered from trial ordered as a consequence of the triable issues from petition H130330 under BCSC 149328). An application is made by IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins for hearing March 2015 BCSC 149328 (ED: 8 months after illegal theft of IRobbins property by the State and the State police). GPR, IRobbins & FM had established the Notice of Claim BCSC 149328 (ED: Again, at the appropriate court registry with a view to expediting claim once dirty petition was discovered). The application of GPR, IRobbins & FM August 20, 2014 includes a hearing date ‘down the road a year’ to accommodate the issues and problems (not) the fault of GPR, IRobbins or FM. (ED: GPR, IRobbins and FM the only sensible ones in this). IRobbins – Glen P. Robbins file a Requisition necessary to adjourn their application March19, 2015. No response had been filed within the time required (or ever) by Cambridge Mortgage – so no consent was thus required to adjourn. Chief Justice Hinkson is incorrect in his order, on page 1 Google of March 24, 2015 order declaring the application a nullity on the basis of the kangaroo Court crooked hearing cooked up under S111171 between fellow ‘law society member’ Michael Kleisinger’. All court orders were properly obliged – the exercise was further ‘bait’ for the ‘big court tuna’. CJ Hinkson rose to the ‘bait’ like a big blue bass and exposed the fulsomeness nature of his complicity to protect the criminal lenders and law society members (ED:I see the colour orange wait…. I am seeing a jumpsuit as well). The application of August 2014 did in fact consider Hinkson’s April 10, 2014 order of April 10, 2014 limits the number of pages of GPR’s leave application affidavit to a number of pages as prescribed by order. Hinkson made no order relating to number of exhibits that GPR could file. GPR, IRobbins and FM were unaware of any order of Madame Justice Arnold Bailey of July 22, 2014 (noted in the wife beaters Order of March 25, 2015) as they had been forcibly removed in the State sponsored home invasion at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane – AND BAKONYI CAMBRIDGE served its application to obtain this order to an empty house (ED(1): 1355 Honeysuckle Lane). (ED(2): Can this story get any more disgusting?) The Requisition (ED: technically an initiating {commencement} document similar to notice of claim or petition, but generally used to change hearing dates and such). An affidavit is required with Requisition filing. The Requisition is accepted for filing by the New Westminster courthouse March 19, 2014 adjourning the hearing date slated for the next week. It is filed absolutely perfectly AND in compliance with Rules and even the crooked orders of Hinkson by Glen P. Robbins, IRobbins and FM. Cambridge Mortgage lawyer Bakonyi attends to IRobbins adjourned hearing date obtaining an (illegal) order for dismissal of the claim against it. Chief Justice Hinkson steps in (ED: unsure of the steadiness) on March 25, 2015 and orders the filed Requisition of IRobbins to be struck from the record despite its filing being in perfect condition of the Orders already made by the corrupt justice. He backdates this order to March 19, 2015 to knock out the Requisition. (ED: think sport of Curling). Hinkson CJ refers to the Requisition as an application –and just as he didn’t seem to notice the difference between an interlocutory application and a commencement document(petition) in LSBC v GPR (S111171) – CJ Hinkson was interfering with a Requisition properly filed adjourning a bona fide application with his new orders (ED: cooked up Kangaroo court order established with his young prodigy – now Enforcement Officer – with LSBC (on Hinkson’s recommendation) one of the main driving forces of the fraud- Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC) – further enabling Cambridge’s fraud. Hinkson CJ was more interested in covering up Bakonyi and Cambridge’s crimes than in anything to do with the interests of justice or his obligation to be concerned with IRobbins or Glen P. Robbins Charter Rights. Hinkson CJ cannot remain in office one more day.
At BC Court of Appeal, Ita Robbins had instead filed a conventional appeal for numerous orders other than the order nisi, which have yet to be heard. This conventional filing including the filling out of document indicating that a constitutional question was raised as a consequence of the May 9, 2013 hearing. The decision on right of audience by Fenlon J. made prior to order nisi would comply with this appeal filing. On March 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge filed an application for vacant possession. Bakonyi knew full well that the order for conduct of sale from Master Tokarek had been appealed by Ita Robbins and her co respondent Frana Matich. Ms. Robbins and Mrs. Matich had established April 24, 2014 for the hearing of this appeal. Bakonyi for Cambridge had never filed and served a defense of the appeal. At the April 7, 2014 hearing of the vacant possession application Bakonyi appeared for Cambridge, while Glen Robbins appeared for himself (app to be added as party), while Frana Matich attended for the respondents. Glen Robbins spoke at this hearing on behalf of Frana Matich and by extension his wife Ita Robbins as English if Frana's 2nd language and Ita Robbins was unable to attend. In Rule 8 application submitted by Glen Robbins, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich for the April 7, 2014 hearing a stay of execution order was sought. Kloegman J. adjourned Bakonyi's application and ordered a stay of execution on file H130330 from April 7, 2014 until April 30, 2014. It is important to note that during the April 7, 2014 hearing before Kloegman J., she requested that court clerk phone down to Manager Sue Smolen from the bench and see if there was a hearing date for April 2014. The Court was advised by Trial Scheduling that there were no dates for April and no dates could be given until the 1st week of the next month (May, 2014). So, Trial Scheduling knew what was going on. On April 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (my) (adjourned) April 23, 2014 date and applied to Justice Davies to have my application to be added as party dismissed which it was. On April 24, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (adjourned) April 24, 2014 appeal of the conduct of sale order matter and obtained order for dismissal while the stay of execution was still in force. Following that Bakonyi for Cambridge then obtained a vacant possession order. Both the dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order and vacant possession were granted by Justice Nathan Smith. Smith also signed the vacant possession order (circumventing the filing of the order which would have brought up court clerk's notes), but mysteriously did not sign the dismissal of the appeal of the conduct of sale order at the same time. The dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order was later filed July 14, 2014 and no justice has signed it. Bakonyi for Cambridge obtained 3 orders during a stay of execution. In October 14, 2014 and again in January 2014 Michael Kleisinger of LSBC wrote to me indicating in his letters (provided in subs to Brown J.), that he was aware that I had Enduring Powers of Attorney but indicated that I could not use these in any court because of the Grauer J. order. Kleisinger was promoting a falsehood in actual contempt of the Grauer J. order relating to subsection 15(5). Kleisinger was trying to intimidate me. A few weeks later my wife Ita filed an affidavit with Kleisinger indicating that at all times and places she had commenced her own court matters. Kleisinger knew that GPR’s application to be added as party would discover many of the improprieties of Bakonyi and Cambridge, as well as Ellis and BMO under H130330, Kleisinger then wrote to GPR indicating he was seeking order of vexatious proceeding (litigant is the defamatory style it is provided in) against me. At no time had Kleisinger ever written to me regarding the vexatious litigant matter. At no time under the petition of the Law Society of BC (S111171) v Glen P. Robbins was a vexatious litigant argument ever made, despite both a petition and amended petition being filed, a trial being held, and an appeal before two levels of the BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (35302) having taken place. This covered a period of time from September 2010 until September 2013. (Actually the S.C.C. Docket extends beyond this date.” In February 2014 Kleisinger made a Rule 8 interlocutory application to the court to hear the vexatious litigant matter pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. Obviously, a vexatious litigant matter under that Act differs from matters concerning the LPA as was dealt with under Grauer J. New subject matter and new statute in support would require a brand new petition which would invoke the rules which would have to be filed at court registry for civil filings and not at Trial Scheduling where it was. A Petition has a longer time for originating process than a rule 8 application by two weeks, and would thereafter require a joint application for Trial Date which would have kicked a hearing date down the road until June or July 2018. The Rule 8 application at Trial Scheduling could only be successfully undertaken if a fix were in play. If any ordinary person attempted to file this document at Trial Scheduling they would be told to take the rule 8 application to civil registry and might be further triggered to ask have you already started a file? Since the court con was occurring under file No.: S111171 the Grauer J. matter Kleisinger in concert with his Chief Justice confederate in manipulating court processes Chris Hinkson CJ – these two cheaters were attempting not only to circumvent due process of the rules of court for petitions and applications under petitions – but to add it to the Grauer J, scam well underway in H130330 (Cambridge). This Rule 8 application was not served upon GPR as I was out of town. This application was not provided to anyone at GPR’s residence either. Without proper notice to me an application was then made to you personally seeking a Trial Date which was made for 18 days later and before you (Hinkson CJ) personally. The application documents filed by Kleisinger for LSBC exploited the ambiguity of application as an originating application (petition) or interlocutory application. You have referred to this rule 8 application as a petition which it is not. I believe you permitted this to happen on purpose in order to use your office to help Kleisinger. If he had filed a new petition under a new docket number a trial date would not have been heard for months. (Apparently everyone in the justice system except for you and the LSBC was not aware that there were court shortages). I submit what I believe you and Kleisinger have known all along, and that is the claim for relief under S111171 by way of petition as you describe it could not possibly occur as a petition and an amended petition has already been filed. A rule 8 application cannot be made under S111171 because the amended petition had already been heard by Grauer J. Also, as chief justice you are the equivalent in authority to any justice of the BC Court of Appeal. You were therefore hearing a petition which had already been heard by a fellow justice (Res Judicata, estoppels), and inserting yourself as a court of appeal justice in a matter where the appeal process has already been heard by three levels of appeal. On Thursday, May 1, 2014 I telephoned Sue Smolen as I was directed to do by Kloegman J (at the extinguishment of the stay of execution order) seeking a trial date for the April 23 and April 24 applications and orders obtained illegally during the stay of execution order of Kloegman J. I was not permitted to obtain a date on the basis of your personal instruction to Smolen that I could not make a trial date because of your order of April 10, 2014 vexatious litigant order made by you three days following the Kloegman J. stay of execution order (adjournment). What is even more disconcerting about these events involving your office and your efforts with Kleisinger and LSBC is that Sue Smolen was also the person who told me your reserved judgment would require from 30 to 90 days to decide, likely the longer. It took 20. The inference of accusation loaded into these facts, is the further fact that in January 2014 following the letter of Kleisinger of January 6, 2014 I wrote to you seeking clarification of the Grauer J. order having been made aware that Kleisinger and other members were promoting the Grauer J. order as a basis for not allowing me to speak in any court. It was planned and deliberate contempt of Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment from both provincial and federal State actors. Despite my pleadings to you to include Grauer J. in this, and despite my complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council and the BC Attorney General office and Federal Attorney General office you wrote back to me saying it was inappropriate to deal with Grauer J. on the matter. I take the position that it was at this juncture that you began to collude with Kleisinger agreeing to use your office to help him evade due process of the courts. I remind you that from 1997 to 2000 when you were a lawyer you represented John Motiuk, who was my lawyer in a BC Human Rights complaint. The Law Society was investigating Mr. Motiuk who was later found to have breached the Legal Profession Act for conduct and who was determined by two psychiatrists to be bi polar and off his medication. Lynne Knights of LSBC indicated to me that Mr. Motiuk had no obligation to tell me he was bi polar and off his medication or that he was being investigated to breaches to the LPA. Mr. Motiuk failed to inform me that he had not submitted application to sever applicants at the BCHRT and was instructed not to make the application by (Chris Hinkson) – Solicitor. Later when Mr. Motiuk did inform me (and it was too late to do anything about it before hearing), he informed me that it was his lawyer who told him specifically not to inform me. It turns out that this lawyer is in fact you. In case this appears to be an after the fact accusation I would advise that this was made public in my 2001 BC Supreme Court filing for which no defense was ever filed. Because of this BCHRT debacle between you and Motiuk, I was subsequently listed as a pedophile by that quasi criminal body and listed on first page Google for 3 years. In 2004 then BC Attorney General Geoff Plant wrote to me indicating that the Province of BC had settled with me which was not true. In October 2013 I had written to Kleisinger and to the BC AG of my intention to file for Default Judgment in my 2001 matter, and to pursue a class action against the BC Mortgage Brokers. You spent a great deal of time in cases involving the LSBC. You have history with them. In fact you even presided as original judge in the Trinity Western matter. I have no doubt that you knew of your history with Motiuk and I and realized when Kleisinger and the LSBC came to you for rescue (ED: Having worked with Kleisinger at the same law office for many years), you would be willing to prostitute your own integrity as well as that of your office to come to their assistance in creating the climate of rushed Kangaroo style hearing. In documents filed by Bakonyi to the Supreme Court of Canada in Robbins v Cambridge (35772), Mr. Bakonyi filed and served documents without disclosing as he must, the fact that he breached a stay of execution order to obtain the three (3) orders described herein. The initial response to application for leave features a service date of April 28, 2014 days after the illegal orders are obtained. Another response/reply document was coaxed out of Bakonyi in May 2014 where he referenced the vacant possession order and your (convenient) vexatious procedure documents. Given that I did not meet any of the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada for determining a vexatious procedure in the 1st place, (including the only Costs against me to LSBC which I am seeking to have overturned), and considering that you said at trial you had never heard of a person defending another person being charged with being vexatious, I believe you wantonly and contemptuously elected to help circumvent Kloegman's stay of execution order, and to hold Grauer J'.s order of October 3, 2011 in equal contempt in order to help maintain the cover up of the subprime mortgage scam LSBC lawyers were involved with to the tune of $200 million per year. I (We) will follow due process of these activities at the top court and submit upon recent invite by BC Ombudspersons office (in regard to the registry recklessness relative to BC Court Rules including those for filing court orders). Beyond that I will proceeding with a court action against you, Fenlon J., Nathan Smith and others, as well as against LSBC (part of Federation of Law Societies) and the BC Attorney General (who assisted in mastering mind this) to the Federal Court of Canada. I will seek damages more consistent with United States amounts for damages as against you and would ask that you not dispose of any property. I have confirmed with the Federal Court that Justices may be served in their own name. These court filings will also include submissions exposing the historical relationship between the Chief Justice of the S.C.C., her husband as Executive Director of an organization representing provincial superior court justices, and the Canadian Judicial Council. I would ask that you move as swiftly as you might to rectify matters under S111171 and do so in conjunction with the Chief Justice for the Province or bring in independent counsel to investigate these two files including your participation therein. I would strongly urge you to take immediate steps to remedy these matters and your direct involvement with them. **I enclose a stay of execution order for judicial signature in the Robbins v Cambridge matter. Naturally, once this is filed as it ought to have been in April 2014, the other illicit orders obtained by Bakonyi should be rescinded including the vacant possession order of April 24, 2014 and writ of possession of July 10, 2014, with further order directing that my wife be returned to her property (as it was before) immediately along with her belongings insured for an estimated $300,000. I (We) refuse to acknowledge your order as it exists against me by you, as I believe it now amounts to defamation, a political double down I believe on the pedophile cause of action which I understand you were indirectly responsible for. Lastly, can you explain to me how case file S111171 came to get a new docket Number - ? [BCSC 1310]. Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins (Enduring Power of Attorney for Ita Robbins) cc other institutions/persons/press Glen P. Robbins responds to BC Ombudsperson on complaint matters-Lawyer John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson (QC) (now chief justice) BCHRT and lawyers Tom Path, Tonie Beharell, & BCSC Master McNaughton May 16, 2016 https://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1094.html Office of the Ombudsperson 947 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8V 3K3 Attention: Ombudsperson (Jay Chalke) RE: Failure to properly deal with appeal from decision of Law Society of British Columbia in relation to matters involving John Motiuk legal counsel – failure to follow instructions, complaint against is lawyer Chris Hinkson QC, matters of 8 boxes of investigative material 1997-2000 involving Law Society of BC, John Motiuk (mentally ill lawyer {bi polar off medication}, whether or not Chris Hinkson solicitor client privilege is valid, complaints against Tom Patch (formerly BCHRT), Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell, Heather McNaughton and others. CBC – “Jay Chalke is a member of the Law Society of British Columbia and is a former Governor of the Law Foundation of BC” Dear Sir: I am writing this response to your offices most recent letter relating to the above captioned complaint/appeal from Law Society of BC I am writing to your recent letter wherein I am appealing the decision and actions of the Law Society of British Columbia, in terms of my past lawyer John Motiuk, his mental illness whilst in custody of my BCHRT file, the actions of Chris Hinkson QC (as he was then), and the Law Society of B.C. I see nothing in your letter which properly addressed the issue of the appeal in relation to my rights under the Legal Professions Act. First. Mr. Motiuk was instructed to vigorously attend against any joinder of the complaint of the five women (only four testified). These instructions were not followed. A vigorous defense in pursuit of the objective of making separate trials for each woman (to excuse the plethora of inconsistencies and lies) would have included filing submissions as directed by Tribunal member and if unsuccessful appealing that order. The matter of joinder was not raised by application but by the Tribunal itself. Mr. Motiuk received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for his work and his hiring was with the clear understanding that I wanted the women's testimony exposed as dishonest. Mr. Motiuk was also directed that in part I wanted the women's lawyers exposed at developing and securing perjured testimony. Mr. Motiuk failed to properly take instruction, and at no time did he advise me otherwise. In fact, Mr. Motiuk was the originator of this legal strategy. Chris Hinkson, Mr. Motiuks' legal counsel has a duty to solicitor client privilege. Mr. Hinkson is not entitled to break the law in his capacity as Mr. Motiuk's lawyer. If it can shown that Mr. Hinkson directed John Motiuk to 'throw the case' in exchange for the Law Society of BC going easy on him, and in order to assist the BC HRT and save from complete loss of credibility (which would have surely accompanied the exposure of Canada's only sexual harassment case where five women were alleged to have been harassed by staring each and every day for literally a year and one half in front of their legal employer (Mitchell Tannis and not me), and where no independent credible witnesses could collaborate their stories out of 40 employees) then solicitor client privilege would not attach. As you have been aware the Law Society of BC has 8 boxes full of material relating to the investigation of John Motiuk involving matters pertaining to his being decertified and later an order that he not be authorized to practice law. This latter order occurred following Mr. Motiuks' failure to follow instruction in matter of joinder, and was chronologically directed related to events involving disclosure of documents. This investigative material is relevant from 1997 to 2000. This is the same period in which Chris Hinkson QC was his lawyer, and which also covers the same period that John Motiuk was my legal counsel on the BCHRT matters. The information pertaining to the outstanding litigation I have at BC Supreme Court since May 2001 can be reviewed online at www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_563.html “A Holocaust in Canada-The cruxification of Glen P. Robbins, Book 1 & www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_569.html “A Holocaust Made in Canada – The crucifixion of Glen P. Robbins, Book 2 (carry over from one). These 'pleadings' transcribed for the general public include verbatim description of the legal facts involved in this case include the method of use of lies, changing of stories from one point in process of BC Human Rights Commission (as it was then) to BC Human Rights Tribunal. I would also call your attention to the fact that the alleged 'pdf' of the Reasons of Tom Patch have been altered to remove the fact that the Tribunal member Tom Patch was sick, that one of the girls (Sara Clemente) was also sick on the day of the hearing, and that Tom Patch acknowledged that a BC Supreme Court action had been filed in relation to the matter. He ought to have adjourned the matter (given it had been adjourned many times already by BCHRT). On what lawful basis can these Reasons be edited out years after the fact? I have indicated that Freedom of Information should be able to go through the 8 boxes of material involving John Motiuk, his lawyer Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of British Columbia. The material in these boxes must also be provided to the BC Ombudspersons Office. As you are aware I am also making accusations in relation to the circumstances of the matter invoked by this appeal in relation to Mr. Motiuk and his relationship to other persons members of the Law Society of BC, as this relates to current accusations made against the Law Society of BC and lawyer Michael Kleisinger and his involvement with Christopher Hinkson in his current capacity as BC Supreme Court Justice. This matter involves lower court case BCSC S111171 and its eventual completion at Supreme Court of Canada (SCC docket 35302). My accusation is that Mr. Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of BC colluded with the Chief Justice (Chris Hinkson QC) to proceed with a trial hearing on the basis of an interlocutory application for final order under BCSC S111171 rather than proceed by originating petition as it must. These actions of a clear breach in the administration of justice, abuse of power and abuse of office as well as breach of trust (as both Mr. Kleisinger and Mr. Hinkson received an indirect benefit in the process). Mr. Hinkson produced a vexatious procedure order against me (which was intended to take a long time to decide according to Hinkson CJ, and 3 months or more according to Trial Scheduling Sue Smolen) on March 21, 2010. It is my contention that Hinkson CJ made his order on April 10, 2014 in order to help cover up the fraud of Ronald Bakonyi & Robert Ellis under foreclosure matter BCSC H130330 where Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis filed an Order Made After Application on May 31, 2013 (which application and order never occurred), and where the presiding Justice Fenlon J. refused a right of audience to me on the basis of an order of Justice Grauer in Law Society of BC v Glen Robbins (BCSC S111171) (this is the matter which was concluded and final at Supreme Court of Canada) and the use of this forged order to obtain conduct of sale on December 9, 2013 before BC Supreme Court Master Tokarek. An appeal was filed by my wife Ita Robbins of the conduct of sale order with hearing April 24, 2014. An application was made out of order by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of Cambridge Mortgage for vacant possession on April 7, 2014 which was adjourned by Madame Justice Kloegman. Kloegman J. also made order for stay of the conduct of sale order (and appeal) until April 30, 2014 in order to permit the obtaining of a trial date on May 1, 2014 (the Vancouver Trial registry takes hearing dates over 2 hours the first week of each month only). The trial hearing was required to deal with the aforementioned appeal of the conduct of sale order, an application by me to be added as party and Mr. Bakonyi's vacant possession order. The Vancouver registry was providing hearing dates (it turned out) in late June and July. Under BCSC action No.: 149328 my wife and I had filed suit in New Westminster Supreme Court 149328 my wife and I had filed suit against Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation and its sister company Peet & Cowan Financial Services. In November 2013 within the BC Civil Rules we had filed for Mediation. The BC Attorney General Regulations along with BC Civil Rules makes it mandatory to attend Mediation. Although it is not required to file the Mediation document, we did under 149328 which can be easily determined through online services. Ronald Bakonyi failed to acknowledge the Mediation (although he is on the court record admitting service). I have filed complaints to the Law Society of BC against Michael Kleisinger, Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis (BMO Bank), in relation to these matters. Mr. Bakonyi then took his ex parte vacant possession order while a stay order was in existence (see BCSC Court Clerk notes desk 210). and sent bailiffs and RCMP to take the home after attempting to negotiate the removal of both if we would consent to the conduct of sale and drop the litigation. Chris Hinkson's earlier than expected order of April 10, 2014 was then used by Ronald Bakonyi in his obtaining the illegal vacant possession order. The order of Kloegman J. drafted by Mr. Bakonyi did not include the stay order until April 30, 2014 but did include the evidence of the forged order made under BCSC H130330 of May 31, 2013 which stated that “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of (his wife) Ita Robbins”. An application was never made with regard to right of audience and no such application for order could be made. A right of audience is determined by leave request of the person seeking the right and constitutional discretion of the decision maker, in this case the justice. One justice cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of another. When Mr. Bakonyi obtained his illegal order for vacant possession after writing his second fraudulent court order (neglecting the stay order) the presiding justice Smith J. ought to have recognized the flaw with the “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of Ita Robbins...” but did not recognize that order in his comments. Instead he indicated that he would have refused to hear from Glen Robbins on the basis of the Hinkson CJ orders. My accusation against Hinkson CJ that I intend to prove is that he was responsible for the matters involving John Motiuk and the BC HRT ultimately resulting in my being listed as a pedophile for three years, and then later when I had threatened to sue the Law Society of BC, again came to their rescue by permitting the severe breach in administration of justice and abuse of office to help to produce a second defamation and keep me from defending myself. Although I realize these latter accusations against justices including the Chief Justice are not within the authority of the Ombudsperson's office, those complaints (appeals) from the jurisdiction of the Law Society of BC in relation to lawyers, John Motiuk, lawyer member Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of BC relating to the BCHRT matter presenting before you are within your jurisdiction. I would ask that you attend to the complaints made against John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson, Tribunal Members Tom Patch, Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell (in her capacity as opposing counsel), as well as BCSC Master Heather McNaughton who though made aware of the issues including the pedophile defamation on 1st page Google refused to protect the site at BCHRT (or place meta tags around it) as was later done by BC Attorney General Geoff Plant. In context of this latter statement I would ask the BC Ombudsperson office to investigate a reference made by AG Plant at the time he acknowledged that “Meta Tags” would be placed around the offensive language, that he also believed that the Government of BC had settled legal compensation with me, when in fact it had not. I would advise that I am seeking Intervener status at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Google v Equustek case relating to Jurisdiction of provincial legislation and free speech. I will be including much of this information beyond the arguments I intend to make in the public interest generally and in revealing a general lack of credibility in the BC Civil Justice system which I am hopeful will showcase a complete lack of independence in the making the of judicial appointments, some members of the judiciary, who I anticipate will be shown to give up the standard expected of them to attain other objectives including those described herein. Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins The Notice Claim IRobbins and another, Glen P. Robbins file Notice of Claim against Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan Financial, Her Majesty (BC) and others (BCSC 149328) In March 2013 IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins file an action against parties referenced including Cambridge Mortgage. This occurs at or about the same time Cambridge has filed its petition for foreclosure in the incorrect registry at Vancouver courthouse at 800 Smithe Street. The Notice of Claim against Cambridge Mortgage is intended to serve as the action (ED: expected to be ordered from trial ordered as a consequence of the triable issues from petition H130330 under BCSC 149328). An application is made by IRobbins and Glen P. Robbins for hearing March 2015 BCSC 149328 (ED: 8 months after illegal theft of IRobbins property by the State and the State police). GPR, IRobbins & FM had established the Notice of Claim BCSC 149328 (ED: Again, at the appropriate court registry with a view to expediting claim once dirty petition was discovered). The application of GPR, IRobbins & FM August 20, 2014 includes a hearing date ‘down the road a year’ to accommodate the issues and problems (not) the fault of GPR, IRobbins or FM. (ED: GPR, IRobbins and FM the only sensible ones in this). IRobbins – Glen P. Robbins file a Requisition necessary to adjourn their application March19, 2015. No response had been filed within the time required (or ever) by Cambridge Mortgage – so no consent was thus required to adjourn. Chief Justice Hinkson is incorrect in his order, on page 1 Google of March 24, 2015 order declaring the application a nullity on the basis of the kangaroo Court crooked hearing cooked up under S111171 between fellow ‘law society member’ Michael Kleisinger’. All court orders were properly obliged – the exercise was further ‘bait’ for the ‘big court tuna’. CJ Hinkson rose to the ‘bait’ like a big blue bass and exposed the fulsomeness nature of his complicity to protect the criminal lenders and law society members (ED:I see the colour orange wait…. I am seeing a jumpsuit as well). The application of August 2014 did in fact consider Hinkson’s April 10, 2014 order of April 10, 2014 limits the number of pages of GPR’s leave application affidavit to a number of pages as prescribed by order. Hinkson made no order relating to number of exhibits that GPR could file. GPR, IRobbins and FM were unaware of any order of Madame Justice Arnold Bailey of July 22, 2014 (noted in the wife beaters Order of March 25, 2015) as they had been forcibly removed in the State sponsored home invasion at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane – AND BAKONYI CAMBRIDGE served its application to obtain this order to an empty house (ED(1): 1355 Honeysuckle Lane). (ED(2): Can this story get any more disgusting?) The Requisition (ED: technically an initiating {commencement} document similar to notice of claim or petition, but generally used to change hearing dates and such). An affidavit is required with Requisition filing. The Requisition is accepted for filing by the New Westminster courthouse March 19, 2014 adjourning the hearing date slated for the next week. It is filed absolutely perfectly AND in compliance with Rules and even the crooked orders of Hinkson by Glen P. Robbins, IRobbins and FM. Cambridge Mortgage lawyer Bakonyi attends to IRobbins adjourned hearing date obtaining an (illegal) order for dismissal of the claim against it. Chief Justice Hinkson steps in (ED: unsure of the steadiness) on March 25, 2015 and orders the filed Requisition of IRobbins to be struck from the record despite its filing being in perfect condition of the Orders already made by the corrupt justice. He backdates this order to March 19, 2015 to knock out the Requisition. (ED: think sport of Curling). Hinkson CJ refers to the Requisition as an application –and just as he didn’t seem to notice the difference between an interlocutory application and a commencement document(petition) in LSBC v GPR (S111171) – CJ Hinkson was interfering with a Requisition properly filed adjourning a bona fide application with his new orders (ED: cooked up Kangaroo court order established with his young prodigy – now Enforcement Officer – with LSBC (on Hinkson’s recommendation) one of the main driving forces of the fraud- Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC) – further enabling Cambridge’s fraud. Hinkson CJ was more interested in covering up Bakonyi and Cambridge’s crimes than in anything to do with the interests of justice or his obligation to be concerned with IRobbins or Glen P. Robbins Charter Rights. Hinkson CJ cannot remain in office one more day.

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