Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 3 IRobbins v Cambridge, Glen P. Robbins v LSocietyBC - Sea to Sea Supreme Court Perfidy - Demand to Can Judicial Council for Inquiry v Hinkson CJ, Fenlon J (primary) (2nd) (Davies, Smith, Grauer JJ, Bauman CJ) (3rd) SCC Wagner --Abella, Rot
  Jul 12, 2020

Commentary
continued from No.: 2
Studies show that one half of civil bailiff attendances are a matter of negotiation. Bakonyi and the Law Society had the RCMP help out the negotiation.
The RCMP and civil bailiffs attending, were both aware of the potential for harm but nonetheless detained Glen P. Robbins without reading him his rights or informing him of why he was being detained and threatened his wife and daughters with arrest as well (psychological detention).
Keep in mind that one daughter (Jane Doe 2) was a minor Infant under the Infant Act (when the court frauds discussed in greater detail hereunder) occurred.
The point to be made here before we are underway with an analysis of the Abuse of Power events that occur (criminal we believe) in a number of interrelated cases at Vancouver BC Supreme Court through the period known to be between April 2013 until July 2019 and ongoing, is that everything that occurs on the date the house, land and property are effectively ‘stolen’ from Ita Robbins in effectively a Canadian State Sanctioned Home Invasion (“CSSHI”)...
Is that the RCMP were dead wrong and will be ultimately found blameworthy sufficient to kick this case out no matter the rest of the ‘shit show’.
The only premise under which police may involve in a civil proceedings is where there is a likelihood of a crime occurring. In 2019 Glen P. Robbins had a full security check done by BC Children & Families going back 30 years. A completely clean record was observed. No one at the house the RCMP attended had any record.
The City of Coquitlam, Mayor Richard Stewart and City Council are (also) responsible for the RCMP in this case (the City operates under Provincial legislation and RCMP federal sufficient to make them both suitable parties to Federal Court). The Day Supervisor at RCMP on the Canada State Sanctioned Home Invasion of July 14, 2014 retired soon afterward (malice).
I/We will include in this Report - an outline of expectations of Judicial behaviour. I note that a recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Sheilah Martin (2017) is publicized as a world class mind on Judicial Ethics. (GPR says you have to be good to be lucky).
Here is some information on Justice Martin: In context of making Justice more public, Justice Martin then at the Queen’s Bench for Alberta in 2005.
“She was one of the first trial judges in the country to permit court journalists to use instant messaging in the courtroom during R v Paxton, 2012 ABQB 96...a complex case.”
“Justice Martin also had an impact on the shape of Charter Section 9 jurisprudence. In a decision co-written with Justice Brown and delivered on behalf of a majority of the Court, Justice Martin held in R v Le that police carding in a private backyard constitutes arbitrary detention for purposes of section 9 of the Charter.”
“According to Justices Martin and Brown, someone is detained when an ordinary person in the same situation would think they were not free…”
“The majority found that Mr. Le was detained the moment the officers entered the backyard (sic) without warning or any suspicion of a crime.” (“Evidence excluded pursuant to section 24 (2))”).
Here are most relevant excerpts from CJC News Ottawa, Ontario November 2019 considered for implementation in Spring 2020. It is from the Draft Version of: “Ethical Principles of Judges”.
(Draft Statement): “An Independent judiciary is indispensable to impartial justice under law.” (Draft Principles): “A”. “Judges exercise their judicial functions independent and free of (outside) influence(s) (sic (2))”. “B” “Judges firmly reject improper attempts to influence their decisions in any matter before the court.” “C” “Judges exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct so as to reinforce public confidence in the independence of the judiciary in the independence of the judiciary.” “Judges encourage and uphold arrangements and enhance the institutional and administrative independence of the judiciary.”
(Draft Commentary) “The right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal is an integral part of the principles of fundamental justice protected by S. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” “1.A.2” “The legitimacy of the judge’s role rests on the public confidence that their decisions are made accordingly to law and nothing else.” “1.B.2” “Judges should avoid all communications - with politicians, government officials, journalists...that might raise concerns about judicial independence.” (Draft Public Confidence): “...(T)he independence of the judiciary preserves public confidence.” “1.D.3 “At the institutional level, courts require sufficient autonomy to guarantee that the administration of justice is free from any political or other improper influence.” “1.D.4” “It is important to recognize that proposed changes in the administrative arrangements affecting the judiciary do not always constitute threats to judicial independence.”
2. Integrity and Respect (Draft) Statement: “Judges conduct themselves respectfully and with integrity so as to sustain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary”. Principles: “Judges comply with the law and behave both inside and outside the courtroom, in a manner that is above reproach (def: expression of disapproval) in the view of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person. Judges are discreet and do not use or disclose confidential information acquired in their judicial capacity for any purpose not related to judicial duties. In the performance of their judicial duties judges treat everyone with civility and respect. Judges foster (def: encourage the development of) access to justice. Judges carry out their duties with appropriate consideration of those persons who are self represented and ensure they are treated fairly and respectfully, so as to provide them with reasonable access to the court. Judges avoid all forms of harassment. Judges refrain from behaviour that can reasonably be perceived as taking advantage of their position as judges. Judges encourage and support the observance of Ethical Principles by their judicial colleagues.”
Commentary (General) 2.A.1 “Public confidence in the judiciary is essential to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, to democracy founded in the rule of law. Whether in or out of the court, conduct of a judge that demonstrates a lack of integrity (wholeness, honesty, uprightness, squareness) can seriously undermine public respect for and confidence in the judiciary as a whole.” 2.A.2. “The conduct of judges is assessed in relation to the essential components of the judicial role. This requires consideration of how particular conduct would be perceived by reasonable fair minded and informed members of the community and whether that perception is likely to lessen respect for the judge or the judiciary as a whole. If conduct is likely to diminish respect in the minds of such persons...A judge should exhibit respect for the law...and should avoid the appearance of impropriety.”
Civility and Respect 2.C.1. “A hallmark of judicial proceedings is that, although the process is adversarial, there is an expectation that all participants including judges, will conduct themselves in ways that preserve the honour and dignity of both the individual proceedings and the administration of justice more generally” 2.C.2. “...By showing dignified consideration of others, judges enhance public respect for and confidence in the judiciary as an institution.” 2.C.3. “The circumstances of some cases and the particular conduct of counsel and parties sometimes requires judges to emphasize decisiveness, promptness, the prevention of abuse of process or improper treatment of participants…” 2.C.6 “It is a delicate question whether and in what circumstances a judge should report, or cause to be reported, a lawyer's conduct.”
Access to Justice and Self-Represented Litigants. 2.D.1. “Judges have a responsibility to promote and foster access to justice. In fulfilling their role, judges should be aware of the different ways in which disputes can be resolved fairly and efficiently.” 2.D.2. “Passive neutrality and treating everyone in the same manner may not always result in a fair hearing for all parties. Social and economic factors associated with litigation mean that parties often appear in court as self represented litigants. Judges should do their best to engage with, inform and assist self-represented litigants on evidentiary and procedural matters, while being alert not to compromise judicial impartiality and the fairness of the proceedings.”
Collective Responsibility. 2.F.L. “Judges should encourage and support the judicial colleagues' observance of ethical principles. Judges occasionally become aware of circumstances that indicate a strong likelihood of unethical conduct of a judicial colleague. In such instances, judges should act in ways that best ensure that action is taken to preserve public confidence in the administrations of justice.”
3. Diligence and Competence (Draft) Statement: Judges perform their duties with diligence and competence. Principles: “Judges devote themselves to their judicial duties, broadly defined, which include presiding in court and making decisions, as well as judicial tasks essential to the court’s operation and to the administration of justice. Judges do not engage in activities incompatible with the diligent discharge of duties.” “Judges perform all judicial duties including the delivery of reserved judges with reasonable punctuality and promptness, having due regard to the urgency of the matter and other special circumstances.” “Judges maintain and enhance the knowledge, skills and sensitivity to social context and personal qualities necessary to perform their judicial duties. “Judges strive to maintain the physical and mental wellness necessary for the performance of judicial duties.”
3.A.1 “Diligence is concerned with the performance of judicial duties in a skillful, careful, attentive and timely way.” 3.A.2 “Judges should exhibit the same level of diligence and competence in the performance of all their judicial duties, including adjudicative duties, case management, pre-trial or settlement conferences as well as participation in court administration.” 3.A.3 “Section 55 of the Judges Act provides that: “No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or herself or others, engage in any occupation of business other then his or her judicial duties, but every judge shall devote herself or himself (sic) exclusively to those judicial duties.” ….(W)hatever outside activity judges may undertake, it should not interfere with their judicial duties.” 3.A.4. “Upon appointment, judges should withdraw expeditiously from professional commitment or business activities.” 3.A.5. “Generally speaking, a judge is entitled to manage ‘passive’ investments that are not thought to constitute ‘carrying on business’, provided that the investment is truly passive with little active management required. However even some ‘passive’ investment may not be in keeping with the judicial office. A careful examination of each investment shall be undertaken and reviewed from time to time, to ensure that it is and continues to be appropriate.” 3.A.6 “Judges are uniquely placed to make a variety of contributions to the administration of justice. To the extent that time permits and subject to the limitations imposed by judicial office, judges are encouraged to contribute to the administration of justice by, for example, taking part in legal education programs for students, lawyers and judges and in activities to make the law and the legal process more understandable and accessible to the public, such as giving lectures, participating in moot courts or through legal writing. In respect of all such activities, judges should consider whether any other principles of judicial ethics are engaged.” 3.A.7 “On occasion, judges or asked by governments to serve as inquiry commissioners. In considering such a request, judges should take it into account the implication for judicial independence of accepting the appointment, and should discuss the matters with the Chief Justice. The terms of reference and other conditions such as time and resources should be examined carefully so as to assess their compatibility with the judicial function.”
3.B.2 “The proper preparation of judgments is frequently difficult and time consuming. Judges are expected to produce their decisions and reasons for judgment as soon as reasonably possible, having due regard to the urgency of the matter, and the length and complexity of the case. In this respect, the CJC has resolved that reserved judgments should be delivered within six months after hearings, except in special circumstances. Judgments must also comply with legal requirements associated with timeliness of judgments applicable in their jurisdiction.” 3.B.3 “While judges strive to be diligent in the performance of their judicial duties, their ability to do so may be affected by various factors, including illness, exceptionally heavy burdens of work, or the inadequacy of resources supporting their work.”
Professional Development 3.C.1 “Judges should have and maintain knowledge of the law. Knowledge extends not only to substantive and procedural law but also to an understanding of the real life impact of the law.” 3.C.2 “Judges are responsible for maintaining and enhancing the knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for effective judging. This important element of judicial diligence and competence involves participation in continuing professional development…” 3.C.5 “As part of a judge’s commitment to continuing professional development, judges shall engage in self assessment and self development, taking responsibility for their standard of knowledge, skill and the development of personal qualities related to judicial duties.” 3.C.6 “To support judge’s commitments to their continuing professional development, the CJC and National Judicial Institute, as well as other organizations, have developed relevant, comprehensive, high quality educational programs. Judges should participate in these programs in their continuing commitment to acquire, maintain and strengthen their judicial knowledge and skills.” 3.C.7 “Consistent with their judicial duties, judges are encouraged to take advantage of opportunities to engage with and learn from the wider public, including circumstances (sic) *(communities edited by GPR) in which the judge has little or no life experience.”*might be misconstrued to be limited to particular communities of race like aboriginals.
I am certain my American ‘friends’ won’t find this event impressive. Why would anyone in their right mind promote Canada for a UN Seat on the Security Council when they condone and cover up this type of protracted fraud with disastrous police state results against women no less. (GPR Canada lost badly AGAIN - maybe pay your bills cheaters) (Another GPR prediction comes true)
Complainants: Glen P. Robbins, Ita Robbins & Another FM (Jane Doe 1 & 2) “the Complainants”
The “Complainants” seek orders from the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) (or Supreme Court of Canada (“S.C.C.”) through Writ of Mandamus for Contempt of Court of Orders and Reasons for Judgement made by fellow Judge Chris Grauer J. October 3, 2011 (S111171).
This Contempt of Court charge/Complaints is levelled against Laurie Anne Fenlon of the BC Court of Appeal in case file H130330 35772 Cambridge v IRobbins & another and against BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Hinkson (S111171) (35302) & H130330 35772.
The Complainants seek orders from the CJC against Lauri Anne Fenlon for Contempt of her own Orders made May 9, 2013 H130330 (procedural denial of right of audience to Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”), and May 28, 2013 H130330 (fraudulent Order Made After Application). The Complainants seek orders from the CJC against Lauri Anne Fenlon for Contempt of Order of Nathan Smith made April 24, 2013 H130330 (vacant possession produced during Stay of Execution Order of April 7, 2014 H130330) by (re)signing a subsequent vacant possession order December 2014, where neither of the orders occurred from a due process hearing or with the Complainants in attendance.
The Complainants seek orders from the CJC against Lauri Anne Fenlon for conspiracy to use her Office to knowingly and intentionally defraud the Complainants in connection with the events of the foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013 along with LSBC lawyers Ron Bakonyi (Cambridge Mortgage) and Robert Ellis (BMO).
The Complainants seek orders of Conflict of Interest against Lauri Anne Fenlon for failing to Recuse herself as Judge in a matter ultimately bearing on case file (S111171) Law Society of British Columbia v Glen P. Robbins (“LSBC”, “GPR”) which Fenlon J. knew or ought to have known involved her former boss Elizabeth Lyall from her former place of work Fasken Martineau Dumoulin.
The Complainants seek orders against Lauri Anne Fenlon of Contempt of the Judges Act, the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins.
The Complainants seek Orders from the CJC against (current) BC Chief Justice Hinkson for Conspiracy along with former law partner Michael Kleisinger Officer of the Law Society of BC (“LSBC”) to commit fraud, to use his Office as Chief Justice to subvert and pervert the course of justice, including (but not limited to) the following:
Wanton disregard and Contempt of BC Civil Rules under his oversight from Supreme Court Act (BC (RSBC 1996) Chapter 443 and section 2.1 (1) which stipulates: “The Chief Justice has responsibility for (a) the administration of judges of the court, and (b) the administration of masters, registrars and district registrars”; Contempt and Conflict in relation to (BCSC File S111171 and SCC 35302) matters relating to the Legal Profession Act (LPA) and unrelated to the Supreme Court Act (BC), where specifically Hinkson CJ treated a Rule 8 interlocutory application of LSBC, as a commencement petition, in order to obtain a ‘rushed hearing’ against GPR producing a vexatious litigant order (unrelated to the statute language) with absolutely no evidence for making the order, ultimately causing Ita Robbins to be defrauded out of her home and property, and to cover up and suppress a Default Judgement application of GPR from a 2001 lawsuit where Hinkson CJ, then as LSBC lawyer interfered with the course of justice and a defence of allegations against GPR at BCHRT which ultimately caused GPR to be erroneously be referenced as a “pedophile” of Google Search Engine 1st page links for 3 years; Contempt of the Judges Act, the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms of both Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins.
Complaint against Barry Davies J. for making an order of dismissal against GPR’s application to be added as party H130330 April 23, 2014 during a Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. H130330, and for the hearing to proceed ex parte when the court file was clearly contentious. Complaint against Nathan Smith J. for making an order April 24, 2014 of dismissal against Ita Robbins appeal of conduct of sale order December 9, 2013 and vacant possession order April 24, 2014 during a Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. H130330.
Complaint against Nathan Smith J. for acting as a court of appeal justice and regular justice and making orders in each of those capacities without due process accorded to the other principles involved most particularly Ita Robbins.
The Complainants make note of wishing to reserve the right to amend their Complaints against Barry Davies and Nathan Smith for their (any) involvement in the Conspiratorial conduct of Fenlon J. and Hinkson CJ as it relates to H130330 (S111171).
(GPR says: “A Copy of this Complaint to them ought to smoke them out of their cave” - will anonymous cheater gatekeeper Special Counsel interfere in plain sight).
Complaint against Chief Justice for British Columbia, (higher in authority to Hinkson CJ), Barry Bauman, who as the top Justice in the Province bore the responsibility of the Court in the chain of Escalation applications made by GPR and Ita Robbins relating to improper filings accepted by the BC Court Registry at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC.. He failed to do his due diligence hiding behind Special Counsel. (Political/Legal Expert: GPR says ‘a real gong show from top to bottom’).
The required escalation to BC Chief Justice Bauman preceded by the ignoring of these Complaints by the BC Ombudsperson - and ultimately Escalated as prescribed to Premier John Horgan (the Executive of BC Cabinet) who was served with the 172 page legal analysis and awareness of the Criminal Code violations filed by GPR with Supreme Court of Canada (Read (awareness)) by Justice Brown.
Complaint against Chief Justice for British Columbia Barry Bauman for knowingly and wilfully permitting Hinkson CJ, Fenlon J. abuses of their Courts to continue, for encouraging the appointment Chris Hinkson from BC Court of Appeal, at or about the time Glen P. Robbins had notified LSBC’s Kleisinger of his intention to sue them over the misrepresentations of the Grauer J. Reasons for Judgment.
The Complainants reserve the right to amend or to initiate a new complaint against specific Supreme Court of Canada Judges and Registrar (a Judge under SCC Rules) involved in Official capacity as decision makers in case file Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage 35772 and Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC 35302, which complaint as well may include one of Conspiracy against both Ita Robbins and GPR.
Complaint to CJC & Writ of Mandamus to SCC to be made public immediately.
Please note that these submissions will be provided at the website www.robbinssceresearch.com in the Public Interest at any time. No more secret law in a secret court. The onus is on the courts and elected officials NOW who are “aware” to fix this. In fact, the complaints will be submitted with available CJC documents along with Complaint details provided under the political website.
These entries will deal will result in a dozen or more entries to stand along U.S. Election Polls @ www.robbinssceresearch.com and will ultimately serve as public markers establishing the evidence trail of the Complaints, and (hopefully) to compel the perpetrators- (in this case quite literally the State or sub State actors (ie The Province is a State actor, while the Law Society is a sub State actor)) -to mitigate further damage.
Also, when one considers the compensation demand from Ita Robbins & Glen P. Robbins keep in mind that well over a Billion $$$$ is spent every year settling legal claims against all levels of government, and although the taxpayer does in fact pay the insurance premiums, these multiple millions will be paid out from insurance, and not dollar direct from taxes.
Think of (my) writing style more like a Prosecutor, a real prosecutor not one who's really just an insider - but an old school prosecutor, not so much as a lawyer.
Keep in mind, (the jurors mind) that an Abuse of Power occurs when anyone in any office receives a benefit in exchange for the Abuse of Power. Most important is this word “benefit”. It isn’t as you might think “benefit” to be, cash, cars, better office space, higher office appointment.
Benefit must be interpreted to mean “INTENTION”. This is the essential key to ascertaining Abuse of Power.
Again, the Devil in the Details ® (some more imaginative readers might actually imagine the Devil (lol)), the filing of fraudulent documents, the ‘odd’ mishaps and mistakes, tricks, chicanery, lies, cheating, thuggery, cruelty - ignoring important Orders like Stay(s) of Execution, and finally, the organizing of the State to assist in the fraudulent manipulation of the courts processes including the Supreme Court of Canada against regular ordinary Canadians including 4 women.
GPR says the legal system appears to be run by Savages.
When have you ever heard of a Provincial Superior Court at the highest office of Chief Justice, the Law Society of BC, the Attorney General of BC, the BC Cabinet participating knowingly and with malicious Intent to defraud that Court, the Supreme Court of Canada?
There is a first for everything...this it it!
This comment on Court/court concepts: The Court with capital “C” is being in the actual courtroom in front of a constitutionally appointed justice (which is what a superior court justice in a province is). The small “c” - court is intended as the court registry.
An important distinction is that the Court is federal, and the court is provincial. The provincial court is administered by the Attorney General who is now David Eby, a former civil rights advocate. Anyone who knows a little BC politics would understand this is going to be interesting. “Who are you? Who who - ..”.
INTRODUCTION:
Glen P. Robbins:
*BCSC S111171 (changed by Chris Hinkson without notice to GPR to BCSC 1310) represents LSBC Kleisinger Hinkson CJ major role in the corruption of the Grauer J. Reasons (S111171). *BCSC S111171 has no relation to any of the events related to S.C.C. 35302 Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of British Columbia (S111171). (S111171) is the original subject case with Reasons for Judgment made October 3, 2011.
These Canadian Judicial Complaints include details proving *BCSC S111171 is (yet) another fraud on the BC Court processes and procedures organized and controlled between former law partners BC Chief Justice Hinkson & Michael Kleisinger, Compliance Officer with the Law Society of BC.
Ita Robbins:
Cases Involved: BCSC H130330 (Petition to Foreclosure) (Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins, Frana Matich, John & Jane Doe); **BCSC 149328 (Notice of Claim) (Ita Robbins, Frana Matich & Glen P. Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan Financial Services and others); SCC 35772 Ita Robbins & FM v Cambridge Mortgage. Reasons for Judgement of BC Supreme Court Justice Grauer (S111171). **Hinkson CJ of *S111171 Grauer J. corruption assists Bakonyi/Cambridge et al.
The Criminal Case against Law Society members, Judges, Lenders Read by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown circa 2016
Relevant Associated Case: Google v Equustek, (SCC 36602) Intervenor Application of Glen P. Robbins (also “GPR”),with reference to BCSC lower court decision maker Judge Fenlon (Foreclosure H130330) (Submissions made as criminal indictment and read by Brown J. of the Supreme Court of Canada).
The body of (criminal) evidence provided under Intervener Application and requisite Affidavit of Court Docs including some 440 total pages is “Read” by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown (SCC 36602) and is available online to be read from the Supreme Court of Canada, S.C.C. Case Filing Resource.
(Readers might again note the “Le” case heard by Brown J. & Martin J of the SCC on detention keeping in mind that White males and White Females are “minorities” of the population).
These Google v Equustek submissions (SCC 36602), include ‘easily’ supported criminal allegations against lawyers Ron Bakonyi and his clients, owners of Cambridge Mortgage Investment (“CMI”), Peet & Cowan Financial Services (“PCFS”) (both companies owned by the same two persons)...
...AND BMO Bank of Montreal & Robert Ellis/Ellis Roadburg; AND Abuse of Power/Office by a number of Justices including (specifically) Fenlon J. - - - Hinkson CJ, with direct causal evidence linking their singular (and We allege collective purposeful collusion and unprofessional conduct) including but not limited to their contempt of:
(1) Kloegman J.’s *Stay of Execution Order of April 7, 2014 - H130030; (2) the filing of a completely fraudulent Order Made After Application May 28, 2013 --H130330 and (3) the purposeful legal and judicial contempt of Reasons for Judgment of Christopher Grauer October 3, 2011 (35302) used to help obtain a order nisi (foreclosure) by fraud on the court H130330.
Background to Stay of Execution Order made by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014
*A Copy of the “Original” “Proceedings In Chambers” provides the Reader with clear insight into what actually occurred before Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014. *Relevant excerpts of those Proceedings are included herein as they relate to the Stay of Execution order made, and Stay of Proceedings application to be heard.
*The Reader should take note that a Stay of Proceedings application of Glen and Ita Robbins is adjourned on April 7, 2007 relating to the original Foreclosure Hearing, involving the fraudulent Order Made After Application (May 31, 2013), which is an Intentionally filed fraud on the court registry by Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO at the end of May 28, 2013 for a later fraud on the Court during a conduct of sale application of May 9, 2013.
*The Stay of Proceedings application of Glen and Ita Robbins has yet to be heard. It is an appropriate consideration for Writ of Mandamus should these Complaints not bear a bushel of good fruit for the Complainants.
*The Stay of Proceedings application is noted on Court Clerk “KO” at 10:28:38 AM (beginning 8:31:31 finished 11:19:23 AM - nearly two and one half hours) April 7, 2014. The Stay of Proceeding application is also sought in relation to the lies and misrepresentations made by the Petitioner Bakonyi/Cambridge and his confederate Respondent BMO/Ellis Roadburg at foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013.
*On the day of the April 7, 2014 Hearing Glen P. Robbins already had an April 23rd, 2014 chamber hearing date for default order to be added as a party.
*Bakonyi/Cambridge did not file a response to GPR’s application (and has yet to do so), effectively giving ‘Scorpio’ GPR complete control of that date. Ita Robbins had an appeal of the Conduct of Sale Order made December 9, 2013 for April 24, 2014 also not defended though both noted to be served upon Bakonyi/Cambridge.
*At 10:50:47 Kloegman J. says on “KO”’s Court Clerk Notes “So I would make the order...stay of execution...until April 30…”. In taped dicta of the hearing Kloegman J. clearly enunciates the Stay of Execution Order.
Court Registry Managers assert that it is ‘what the Judge says on the taped dicta that matters’. You will note Glen P. Robbins Affidavit accompanying document submissions to the BC Supreme Court from last year.
*Both Glen and Ita Robbins had provided for short hearing times (30 minutes) on both April 23 & 24th, 2014.
*Kloegman J. has just directed Court Clerk “KO” to check at Trial Scheduling to see if either April 23, 2014 or April 24, 2014 hearing dates (controlled by Glen and Ita Robbins) could accommodate Ron Bakonyi/Cambridge’s suggestion to Kloegman J. in the Proceedings where at page 26 line 11-12 The Court says to Bakonyi/Cambridge:
“But I would expect that they (all of the reset applications) would require half a day, a day? What do you think? In response at page 26 line 14 Bakonyi for Cambridge agrees from the two choices of half a day or one day that “Half a day should be -- to which Kloegman J. at line 15 cuts him off saying: “Half a day. All right. Half a day.”
At Page 26 line 22-23 Court Clerk KO asked Kloegman J.: “Heard on the 23rd or 24th, My Lady?” to which The Court (Kloegman J.) responds: “Whichever they can give us.”
At lines 3-6 in speaking to the potential of either the 23rd or 24th for hearing Kloegman J. asserts: “Well, let’s just wait. They may not have that scheduled. I don’t know. We can stand down if they need to talk to me about it”. {Kloegman J, addresses Court Clerk “KO”} “What did they say”.
(Kloegman J. catches herself realizing that the two dates controlled by Glen & Ita Robbins April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014 are registered at Chambers Desk and not at Trial Scheduling).
Having already heard Bakonyi/Cambridge assert at Hearing that he thought a half day would ‘do fine’ (takes it out of the hands of Chambers where it resided and into those of Trial Scheduling)...meaning Bakonyi/Cambridge was aware, or ought to have been aware that neither of the existing GPR & IR hearing dates were available in the present form (remember shortage of justices) the Court Clerk “KO” stipulates to Kloegman J. at lines 7-8:
* “My Lady, she says that is a bad week for the 23rd or 24th ''. (For point- at this juncture of the hearing GPR knows it's over for Cambridge).
*At lines 9-14 Kloegman J. “The Court” in regard to the effort to use the existing Robbins & Robbins controlled hearing dates responds to Court Clerk KO’s news from Trial Scheduling’s Sue Smolen:
*“So they’re not able to accommodate that.”
*At lines 15-18 Glen P. Robbins speaks: “This additional application (Bakonyi’s vacant possession application), I’ll be resetting a date for that. I’m confused as to what to do if we haven’t got them centralized to one day” (hearing time-Bakonyi says one half day both Trial Scheduling).
*The Court responds to Glen P. Robbins at lines 20-21:
“--you’re trying to obtain a stay (sic) of the proceedings of the foreclosure, correct?”
*At lines 22-28 Glen P. Robbins replies to Kloegman J. “I’m doing -- trying to do a number of things in this notice of application -- I have one, two, three, four -- six orders.” (Clever Barrister GPR who has no confidence in the court’s integrity at this point is making sure the evidence is laid down on Transcript that the Hearing in question is going to take some time-given the six orders he is seeking in his and Ita’s application). (This April 7, 2014 hearing took nearly 3.5 hours more than one half day).
The Court at lines 10-12 Page 28 Kloegman J.:
“(1) Set it down whenever you like, Mr. Robbins.” to which Glen P. Robbins responds at line 13 Page 28 from Proceedings in Chambers: “Thank you, My Lady.” {Game,set & match Glen & Ita Robbins ‘Pro Se King & Queen’}.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2020