Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 6 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 09, 2020

continued from No.: 5
Heather Holmes, Assistant Chief Justice (Trudeau,Justin) is also located at crooked, contemptuous Vancouver courthouse and can see the court fraud occurring in (S111171) (35302) (Grauer J.) and *(S111171) (Hinkson CJ). Kleisinger of LSBC is involved in both hearings - and her Ladyship knows NOW it is a misuse of court procedures and processes and a fraud on Glen P. Robbins and his wife Ita.
AND Ita and Glen Robbins 172 page “Legal Binder” was also sent to the Current Head of the BC Inquiry into money laundering. former BC Assistant Chief Justice Austin Cullen, (Chretien, Jean) Hinkson’s former second, in that Office during this period of frauds upon the court and Glen and Ita Robbins.
I/We are of the opinion, on balance of probability, Austin Cullen is aware of the court fraud described herein being protected by his position as head of the BC Inquiry on fraud in real estate.
The record will also reveal that Ita Robbins et al and Glen P. Robbins attempted to file a Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014 @ H130330 SCC 35772 in June 2019.
Keep in mind that the Order of a Superior Court Judge is valid upon the date it is made inside the Courtroom, whether the Order is filed or not. So Kloegman J. 's Order for Stay of Execution of April 7, 2014 is in place, it exists and has existed since April 7, 2014 when she made it. “Any Party to the file may file an Order”.
In the June 2019 submissions of Ita and Glen Robbins to the Vancouver Supreme Court, (the Civil Filing Desk) responsible, refused to file the signed draft of Stay of Execution Order of Ita Robbins dated April 7, 2014 under H130330.
THAT the Stay Order and other documents could not be accepted for filing unless filed with notation of the corrupt Hinkson CJ order against GPR, in short asking the victims Ita Robbins et al and Glen Robbins to be victimized again by fraudsters Hinkson CJ and Kleisinger LSBC’s corruption on both files. (Trial Scheduling at Vancouver courthouse is the civil desk which receives correspondence to Judges) represents a continuation of the bad faith occuring in the main cases (S111171) (35302) & H30330 35772.
These letters to and from Special Counsel at Trial Scheduling (representing the Justices of the BC Supreme Court) translate to further Legal Notice to the BC Supreme Court from both Ita Robbins & Glen P. Robbins.
This is particularly relevant given that Supreme Court of Canada Brown J. “Reads” Glen P. Robbins Criminal Complaint and Information through the Google v Equustek Intervenor application of November 9, 2016. Through late November 2018 and the spring and summer of 2019 the 172 page Legal Binder is served upon BC Premier Horgan through two separate services, and is also upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
In 2015 Jody Wilson Raybould, then Canada’s Attorney General, was also served with documents. Documents that would show that a Canadian citizen, a woman, a feminist - apparently like she was - was being ripped off by powerful men in high office.
Did it not matter? Why not? Was it because Ita Robbins is a White women, albeit Croatian Canadian, representing only 3 percent of the population - similar to the national population of aboriginals?
Jody Wilson Raybould as Canada’s Attorney General is 1st made aware of the crooked, criminal filing of the Order Made After Application filed in court registry H130330 at the end of May 2013 in December 2015.
This December 2015 letter to Canada’s Attorney General Jody fails to deal with Bakonyi/Cambridges mail fraud attempting to collect court costs on the fraudulent Order Made After Application using Canada Post to do so.
Ita and Glen Robbins now have the federal government locked into damages on failure to protect citizens and enforce the law relating to the charging of Interest (Interest Act, Canada), and permitting criminal usury and court costs from said usury to be ‘laundered’ through the BC Supreme Courts (province at the registry) with the express permission and knowledge of the Chief Justice and other justices operating under Constitutional appointment and the Judges Act, both Federal documents. The Constitution, Charter of Rights, Interest Act, use of Canada Post (Federal) suborned by BC Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
A line up deserving of the Federal Court Rules in cases where provincial and federal jurisdiction intersect ! Had Jody Wilson Raybould (Trudeau, Justin) had staff at her constituency office check the BC Court registry just a few blocks away, additional damages might have been averted. Or was Canada’s AG similarly deluded as Fenlon J. (Harper, Stephen) and Hinkson CJ (Harper Stephen) by the SNC Lavalin Abuse of Power?
This letter also sets out the details of the fraud on the court in relation to the manner in which the order nisi was obtained, and the right of audience denial (15 (5) of May 9, 2013.
The the BC Courts - 2 (two) BC Superior Court Judges, Cullen, an ex assistant chief justice, and Heather Holmes (Chretien, Jean) - Cullen’s replacement, receive submissions, most noteworthy the effort by Ita and Glen Robbins to finally file the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J., April 7, 2014
They also receive with the 172 page Legal Binder. It is presumed to be “Read” by virtue of the Letter of Reply of Special Counsel representing all of the Judges of the Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court. The reader will note our letter has been attached to file H130330 with a copy of the letter included in these submissions
The basis of the Supreme Court of BC refusal to accept the 2019 effort to file the Stay of Execution Order of April 7, 2014 H130330 35772, is the corrupt order of Hinkson CJ concocted with former law partner buddy Michael Kleisinger Compliance Officer avec LSBC April 10, 2014 under compromised BC Supreme Court file No.: *(S111171).
GPR & IR responded to the BC Supreme Court Trial Scheduling’s Special Counsel letter of Spring/Summer 2019, directing them to the BC Civil Rules: ‘that any party to a proceeding where a order is made by a Justice may file a draft order of that Order’, (in this case the Stay of Execution Order {referenced persistently} of Kloegman J. April 7, 2014, and more particularly Hinkson’s order, which order was obtained from file (S111171) (SCC 35302) involving Glen P. Robbins (but detrimentally affecting Ita Robbins as well in H130330 SCC 35772).
Is it any surprise that Hinkson’s wife commits suicide? What were the problems with his father, also a Judge?
Another moment to enjoy Considering Ita Robbins Damages (for context in this slam dunk case).
I/We would like to see the “unique circumstances” in these matters considered sufficient to call for *$1,000,000 in non pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) for primary plaintiff Ita Robbins (rather than the $500,000 limit currently floundering as the limit for that head of damage in Canada).
This amount couples with an amount for aggravated damages, multiplied by 5 with house (highest value $1,600,000) extracted from calculation, along with insured contents values ($300,000), plus lost rents (5.5% of high value home per year) x time required to conclude settlement or $500,000 (6 years) in lost rents.
A specialized non pecuniary amount for Ita Robbins of: (1) *$1,000,000, (2) aggravated damages amount of $500,000 multiplied by punitive damage of 5 produces a ‘reasonable’ settlement amount of $7.5 million dollars to Ita Robbins before (3) adding stolen land, house plus insured contents totalling $1.9 million and (4) $500,000 in Rents, plus $400,000 in Court Costs or $10.3 million before Interest.
A similar case(s) in the State of California following review of civil damages there, would likely produce an amount of damages in the $150,000,000 US, given the level of planning by State and subState actors to ‘steal’ Ita Robbins house and property.
These amounts suggested as compensation settlement for Ita Robbins are not dissimilar to the amount paid by the Trudeau government to Arar (former terrorist who murdered US soldiers) at $10.5 million in 2007.
Arar’s 2007 settlement is worth well over $13 million now far more than Ita Robbins is seeking. Do you believe this is fair to Ita Robbins et al in the circumstances?
Glen P. Robbins' father Douglas Robbins (Edmonton Alberta) fought for Canada in World War II in the Navy, his father (GPR’s grandfather Vernon) fought for Canada in World War II, while Ita (Matich) Robbins father Peter Matich fought for Australia in WWII. Who are ‘you people’ kidding?
At least six Supreme Court of Canada Justices are now clearly implicated in protecting and defending the fraud upon that court and Ita Robbins by Bakonyi (CMI, PCFS) and Kleisinger (Hinkson CJ, (Hinkson when he was a lawyer)) some more Intentionally than others.
As is, Hinkson CJ’s alleged ‘other alleged accomplice’ is former law partner Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society of BC (and Tim McGee former Executive Director on record at S.C.C. (35302) Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC). All of these allegations have been published at www.robbins sce; ...
...and very well Read by ‘IP addresses’ of both Senior levels of government in Canada, the United States and around the World, have not been refuted by any of the State or sub State Actors implicated and or accused.
(Again, please note that the Google v Equustek Intervenor application of Glen P. Robbins includes all of the relevant documents affixed to the affidavit of GPR predicated on Martin's Criminal Code 2013) where Constitutionally appointed Justices took advantage of their high office, and superior access and control of the court processes to abuse the Rules, lie and deceive Glen P. Robbins through a consciously planned miscarriage of justice against GPR and fraud(s) upon the Supreme Court of Canada).
The Government of BC (Canada) is also clearly implicated in these alleged criminal actions against Ita Robbins et al, and GPR, most specifically from BC Attorney General (BC Court Services), BC Minister of Finance, and more generally the Government of British Columbia (Cabinet) (Lieutenant Governor).
‘On hold’ complaints occur among those persons subject to the Judges Act including present and past Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who have come into direct decision making on both cases before it, namely Glen P. Robbins & Law Society of BC, (S111171) (S.C.C. 35302), AND Ita Robbins et al versus Cambridge Mortgage. S.C.C. 35772 BCSC H130330.
I/We recognize that a Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, though not considered a Judge under the Judges Act (Canada), is nonetheless a lawful Judge the minimum in the administrative role of the Registrar, and public service agent of the Federal Government and Province of Ontario implicating both governments. For the time being at least, given it is Registrar Roger Bilodeau’s advice to then regular SCC Judge Wagner (now the Chief Justice of that Court) under S.C.C. File No.: 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage, to accept Hinkson’s order LSBC v Glen P. Robbins *(S111171) relating to Glen P. Robbins as a reason for closing Ita Robbins’ file at the Supreme Court of Canada,
Wagner has an opportunity to escape the fate of the BC Chief Justice and LSBC lawyer Bakonyi/Cambridge fraud. His Lordship can say he wasn’t provided with material to render a fair decision. What is Bilodeau’s excuse?
Bakonyi/Cambridge’s court filing to the Supreme Court of Canada under S.C.C. file 35772 of BC Chief Justice Hinkson’s vexatious order against Glen P. Robbins *(S111171), produced under response submissions, where Glen P. Robbins is not a party to the filing, and (W)here the fraudulent orders obtained on April 23rd & April 24th, 2014 by Bakonyi for Cambridge, - APPEAR sufficient to cause S.C.C. Justice Wagner J. (before he became Chief Justice) to place a hold on filings on that file 35772, characterizing the proceeding as vexatious.
Note that SCC Chief Justice Wagner is from Quebec which has a different Civil law than the rest of Canada - more in tune to address complaints like this at CJC where Wagner is also head of that Council. He is initially appointed by Stephen Harper, but made Chief Justice by Trudeau (Odd).
Ultimately, I/We believe these facts bring both the Supreme Court of Canada and its current Chief Justice Wagner (wittingly or unwittingly) into disrepute.
The Stay of Execution Order fraud on the Courts under file No.: H130330 ties Bakonyi/Cambridge (Ellis Roadburg/BMO), Fenlon J., H130330 35772; Hinkson CJ *S111171, (S111171) (35302) H130330 35772; Michael Kleisinger (S111171) (35302) *S111171 H130330 35772 and Tim McGee former Executive Director of LSBC *(S111171), (S111171), (35302), H130330 35772 together in an undeniable and reprehensible fraud against Ita Robbins and Glen Robbins.
How many people reading this believe that the Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada involved in Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage 35772 are in the corruption with their counterparts in BC, and how many of you believe they like Ita Robbins were conned?
Keep in mind that no person other than a Law Society lawyer under the Supreme Court of Canada Rules can represent another person other than themselves at either that Court or The Federal Court of Canada without express permission of the Court.
The Canadian Senior Courts are evidently part of a closed justice system (on its face).
This filing to the CJC (Canadian Human Rights Commission) and to the Supreme Court of Canada will tell us much of what we don’t know in terms of the Public Interest and the Canadian Courts, and specifically to this case the Interests of Ita and Glen Robbins. What will be more important to the Canadian Judicial Council protecting the crooked actors in their midst or remedying the miscarriage of justice against Ita Robbins et al?
The Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014 (H130330) remains unfiled to this day.
The appeal of the conduct of sale order (dismissed by Smithe J., April 24, 2014 through court fraud) has yet to have a proper hearing. The application of Glen Robbins to be added as party (which normally calls for the matter to be heard as a notice of claim) still remains unheard.
The *Reader should note from the enclosed letter in response of Ita Robbins and Glen Robbins to the BC Supreme Court in June/July 2019, it is their position that the Stay of Execution Order was made by Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014, with all available elements of the Draft Order available April 8, and 9th, 2014 in the BC Court Registry under BC Supreme Court case file (H130330), and... ...Where Ita Robbins and another were the primary parties to that action, and were the direct beneficiaries of the Stay of Execution Order, but had nothing to the Law Society of BC case *(S111171) involving Chris Hinkson CJ, Glen P. Robbins, Michael Kleisinger and LSBC.
Surely these are Sexist Acts by State Actors (including some of them Women).
I/We have taken the steps (spring/summer 2019) to respond to Special Counsel by asserting that the Stay of Execution Order occurring on April 7th, 2014 under File No.: H130330, valid until April 30th, 2014 And Hinkson J.’s vexatious procedure order made April 10th, 2014, 3 full days later, dealing with *S111171 Glen P. Robbins v LSBC are extended evidence of the obvious Judicial Court fraud in these cases. Ita Robbins et al had nothing to do with the order of Hinkson CJ as her case was H130330 SCC 35772 the file where the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. was made April 7, 2014 --- 3 count em like our 2 year old grandson Nathaniel--- lawyer/people 1, 2, 3 - full days after the Stay of Execution Order. I/We take the position that the letter of the Special Counsel on behalf of BC Justices (Vancouver) was additional evidence of Bad Faith by State Actors in High office in the Province of British Columbia (Province of Ontario) and Canada.
Obviously, had Bakonyi/Cambridge filed the Stay of Execution Order on April 8th or 9th, 2014 (H130330) the court frauds on April 23rd and April 24th, 2014 by Bakonyi/Cambridge would not have occurred. Bakonyi/Cambridge should not lawfully have found a judicial audience on April 23 & 24, 2014 as a consequence of the Stay of Execution Order (H130330) being filed. This goes to Human Rights arguments on religious grounds that persons of Jewish background of disproportionate size relative to the population participating at the Apex of Canada’s legal system believe they are above the law - (not an original historical assertion).
The Supreme Court of Canada application of Ita Robbins for a Stay of Execution Order File No.: 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage would occur automatically as a consequence of the filing in the lower court H130330 Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins and the Supreme Court of Canada Rules which demand that a stay from the lower court is an automatic stay at the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the BC Civil Rules, any party subject to order can under the BC Civil Rules file a draft order to the Court, inclusive of requisite court clerk notes.
Bakonyi/Cambridge sought control of making the order at the end of hearing April 7, 2014, suggesting his plan to defraud Ita Robbins et al was already in backup position to his ‘Hail Mary’ application of April 7th, 2014 for vacant possession dismissed by Kloegman J.
Glen P. Robbins or Ita Robbins (another) normally could have under the BC Civil Rules, filed the Stay of Execution Order, and put a stop to this Bakonyi/Cambridge fraud, mitigating the miscarriage of justice, save for Bakonyi/Cambridge gaining control of production, and the filing of the Order, because Ita & Glen Robbins were not members of the Law Society. I/We believe that on April 7, 2014 Bakonyi/Cambridge’s application for vacant possession was a ‘Hail Mary’ effort to grab up the vacant possession order - with an application itself clearly out of order (which should not have been accepted by BC Civil Registry Filings in the 1st place).
The crooked BC Court Registry 800 Smithe Street in the middle of downtown crooked Vancouver, BC, ought to have indicated the April 23rd, 2014 and April 24, 2014 Dates. Bakonyi/Cambridge were extending their fraud on the BC Courts and Canadian Justice System from criminal fraud Order Made After Application May 28, 2013 to Contempt AND Fraud.
Keep in mind that April 24, 2014 was Bakonyi/Cambridge’s 3rd consecutive fraud on the Court and Ita and Glen P. Robbins, where he obtained a dismissal of the appeal of the *Conduct of Sale order (H130330), on a calendar date subject to the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. of April 7, 2014 before Smith J. obtaining an order made before an *appeal court.
This dismissal order is made by Justice Nathan Smith prior to the provision of the vacant possession order (H130330) (again) by Smith J. So -- Smith J. 1st makes an order of dismissal of Ita Robbins appeal of the conduct of sale order of December 9, 2013 1st as an appeal judge, and then 2nd makes the vacant possession order directly after as a regular Judge, signing the vacant possession order in the courtroom for Bakonyi/Cambridge’s nefarious benefit. (One stop judge shopping lol).
The Supreme Court of Canada Rules provide that any order from a lower Superior Court of Appeal, (in this instance the first order of Smith J.), is appealable to that Court. So Smithe J.’s judicial debauchery of April 24, 2014 is appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Why should Ita & Glen Robbins have to pursue an appeal of an order obtained by a labyrinth of Court fraud and Corruption at the High Office? A Writ of Mandamus appears to be in order.
The dismissal of Ita Robbins appeal of the conduct of sale on the basis of the court fraud document in evidence of the Order Made After Application filed May 28, 2013 under H130330 draws Smith J. into the fraud like a magnet and unless and until he can show he is ‘judge enough’ to declare his orders occurred under the duress of fraud and acknowledges that he did not authorize a police authority under his order, condemning the actions of Bakonyi/Cambridge, he too has to be viewed to possess dubious intent.
On this basis Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins wishes to file a Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council against BC Justice Smith.
A Conventional Appeal was made to BC Court of Appeal to the order nisi (foreclosure) May 9 2013 before Law Society lawyer Elizabeth Lyall’s former associate lawyer Lauri Anne Fenlon now made a Judge (surprise!) (H130330). A proper appeal hearing for right of audience appeal for Glen P. Robbins at foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013 relating to the foreclosure has yet to be heard.
An appeal of Fenlon J.’s right of audience procedural order filed by Ita and Glen Robbins at BC Court of Appeal BCCA 40954 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage, then served upon Bakonyi/Cambridge, (and not properly defended by Cambridge Mortgage), includes triable issues relating to the original unconscionable loan provided by Peet & Cowan Financial, and subsequent fraudulent mortgage registration filed at Land Title Office by LSBC lawyer Van Loewen and Cambridge Mortgage, sister company to Peet & Cowan Financial...and has yet to be heard.
The Federal law in Canada controls the Competition Bureau and Competition Act which governs scams involving two companies owned by the same people, in this case Peet & Cowan Financial & Cambridge Mortgage.
The matter of a fair and proper hearing of Glen P. Robbins' right of audience before an unbiased constitutional judge has not occurred.
Fenlon J. in misapplied (the outdated amended) subsection 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act, and her failure to properly conduct any proper due diligence including the diligence of reading the (short) Reasons for Judgement of Grauer J., which would then have by extension of investigation taken her to the reality that subsection 15 (5) Grauer J. dealt with no longer existed on May 9, 2014 and had been amended with language taken out and existed as 15 (5) amended. Not to mention Fenlon J. was a former subordinate to Elizabeth Lyall at Fasken law firm, and should have recused herself from hearing the May 9, 2013 foreclosure petition on the basis of her former boss being the lawyer who argued 15 (5) on behalf of the Law Society of BC versus Glen P. Robbins before Grauer J. September 19, 2011.
At that hearing and after filing one petition, then another, and no reference to a vexatious litigant order being sought, Elizabeth Lyall tries to get Grauer J. to grant one, Grauer J. waves Lyall off as if to say ‘come off it don’t be hysterical lady’ - ‘no interest in going down that road’. Instead Grauer J. entertains GPR’s renditions of how the Sacrament of Marriage - ‘one body stands in the other shoes to speak to their cause without benefit’ effectively captures 15 (1) for GPR as barrister separate from 15 (5) the solicitor.
I say this because in the Reasons for Judgement of Justice Grauer (we will break down into greater detail later on) he plainly separates the law with respect to the right of audience in the actual Courtroom (the role of the barrister), and filing documents at the court registry 15 (5) (the role of the solicitor).
he right of audience is subject to the discretion of the constitutional justice, not on the basis of poorly written law by the Law Society of British Columbia and corrupt individuals in high office who work to exploit the confusion about it.
Again, the Court in session with a Constitutionally appointed Judge is spawned from the federal constitution, whilst the 15 (1), 15 (4) & 15 (5) from the Legal Profession Act (British Columbia) is provincial jurisdiction.
I have seen case precedent where a right of audience hearing took place over many hearings and a one year period, the the person seeking the right of audience had vexatious litigant orders all across the country.
15 (5) had de minimis legal weight in Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgement (S111171) - an assertion that will also be proved out herein which clearly established that a right of audience dealt with the actions of a barrister, and 15 (5) of a solicitor.
A Constitutionally appointed Judge of a Superior Court has the discretion to deny a right of audience, but that discretion has limitations. Certainly 15 (5) was not a proper element of any decision on the right of the audience no matter no one including Grauer J. knew what it meant. And...Grauer’s 15 (5) no longer existed when foolish Fenlon misapplied it to help Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis Roadburg/BMO steal the order nisi.
Transcript excerpts from 172 page Legal Binder of that pathetic May 9, 2013 court debacle under File No: H130330 is provided herein (featuring the 15 (5) “LSD” arguments)
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 9, 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 miscarraige of justice through manipulated and illegal document filing. He seeks an adjournment and trial hearing (for his wife) 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 P. Robbins states to the court: “My name is Glen P. Robbins , for my wife IRobbins and (another), and I want to draw the court’s attention before we are prejudiced any further, that the documents filed with the petitioner are incorrect documents.”
GPR 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 Ombudsperson's Office). The Notice of Hearing was never served, Ita Robbins et al only discovered the hearing because of serving of Index.
From Page 101 Para 345 of the GPR affidavit to SCC: Madam Justice Fenlon for THE COURT states: “That’s fine. You are here through speaking on behalf of (FM) (ignores his wife with the same last name) so I’ll ask you to have a seat for a moment so that I can get some sense of what is being applied for here.”
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 Court 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 chamber's 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”. “Madam 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 (Fenlon J.) 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 I will permit you to speak and I will ask Mr. Bakonyi not to interrupt you, so those are the rules of engagement here.” So it appears at this juncture of the foreclosure hearing Glen P. Robbins has been granted the right of audience.
At page 2 Bakoni 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 had no standing to be here today/and to speak on behalf of IRobbins & FM (sic).” At line 27 page 3 of Transcript (page 102 Para 359 of S.C.C. submissions Mr. Bakonyi states (repeats himself): “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.”
Beginning line 11 page 4 of Transcript Bakonyi adds: (GPR says: 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 not standing because he’s not a party” (GPR says: this is the 3rd time Bakonyi/Cambridge has said the same thing - like a Jewish Joe Biden - GPR begins to check to see if there is any dribble running down his chin).
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 (Grauer J 15 (5) 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 persons except as permitted under section 15 (1) of (The Legal Profession Act (BC)).
Mr. Bakonyi fails to tell the Court that this order no longer exists and the provisions in the legislation have since been changed by the BC Legislature. 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 stating: “Which deals with you have to be a lawyer to be able to practice law.” At this point in the near empty courtroom GPR looks around for anyone in a nurses’ smock (lol).
At line 20 of page 8 THE COURT asks Bakonyi: “But….there is no vexatious litigant order?” To which Bakonyi at line 21 responds: “The (sic) Law Society is looking at that”. (GPR says he has never heard anything from the Law Society). One can see that there is no Application separate from the foreclosure petition (application) dealing with the right of audience. There is no evidence of vexatious litigant order on May 9, 2013. The Reader should also note that Justice Fenlon suggests her standard for denying audience - a vexatious litigant order.
To this vexatious litigant order Bakonyi adds: There is none (sic). “The only reason it’s in front of you...I just happened to come across that when I looked at his name on the Internet.” At line 26 of page 8 THE COURT responds to babbling Bakonyi’s weak eloquence by asking Bakonyl: “All right. So you are saying on behalf of your client that this is a standard mortgage foreclosure”, to which Bakonyi responds “Yes”. Obviously at this point in the hearing Justice Fenlon has turned her focus back to the only application before here, the foreclosure action.
IMPORTANT -At line 4 page 9 THE COURT asks Bakonyi: “And the preliminary issue is whether the court should be hearing from Mr. Robbins” (GPR: Fenlon J. herself provides all the evidence required to prove that the Order Made After Application filed May 28, 2013 on the matter of the right of audience is a fraud and she knows it). Bakonyi acknowledges his awareness that the Order Made After Application is preliminary and not substantive...he knows he and Robert Ellis committed fraud on the court.
At line 45 Page 14 of Court Transcript Justice Fenlon provides unequivocal cause for overturning everything on the file (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.”
Yet, at line 38 Page 15 (page 170 of SCC transcript in Google read by Brown J., Fenlon J. says this: “I agree that it is normally up to the Judge hearing the matter to decide whether to permits 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 Mr. Robbins is not speaking on behalf of anyone else.” Now Fenlon has just made the entire hearing a nullity.
She has acted in Contempt of Justice Grauer’s Reasons and entirely misinterpreted (on purpose we believe) the meaning of the order apparently not knowing that order no longer existed as law having been materially altered following Grauer J.’s castigating of 15 (5). At line 9 page 16 of Court Transcript - GPR has sniffed out the Constitutional con job going on where GPR says:

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