Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.:9 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 07, 2020

Commentary
continued from No.: 8
The LSBC and Judicial support of Fenlon J. and Hinkson CJ (Davies J, Smith J.) makes it all too easy for Bakonyi/Cambridge to successfully defraud Ita and Glen Robbins.
Fenlon J., Hinkson CJ, Davies, Smithe - all so easily deluded. Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis Roadburg/BMO fraudsters. A real ugly court conspired mess.
It is disturbing conduct and heads in ‘high places’ should roll.
If Canadian high courts, governments and banks are willing to defraud innocent citizens in order to promulgate an industry of usury and unconscionable loans, why would the United States ever seriously allow Canada to a seat on the UN Security Council? Canada can’t apparently keep ordinary good people secure.
If Canadian high courts, governments and banks are willing to defraud innocent citizens in order to promulgate an industry of usury and unconscionable loans, why would the United States ever seriously allow Canada to a seat on the UN Security Council? Canada can’t apparently keep ordinary good people secure.
Given the fact that at least 3 lawyers and 4 Judges involved in S111171 and H130330 are of Jewish background is itself in context of financial usury - as Justice Grauer says “ironic”.
There is no doubt by virtue of (1) court clerk written notes, (2) most importantly Justice Kloegman J.’ taped order viva voce of the Stay of Execution Order, as well as (3) a Court Transcript instruction from Kloegman J. to Glen P. Robbins to have custody of establishing a new court hearing as soon as possible by virtue of the fact that both the original applications to be added as a party (Glen P. Robbins) and appeal of Conduct of Sale (Ita Robbins) were ‘foolishly’ left undefended by Ron Bakonyi & Cambridge.
The BC Court Rules establish that if a party does not defend an application or petition, the applicant or petitioner is under no obligation to inform that party of further actions taken on the file.
Because Bakonyi did not file a defence to (1) GPR’s application to be added as a party (in a case involving his residence), (and consented to (agreed to by respondents) Ita Robbins et al), or (2) a defence to the appeal of the conduct of sale order, Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins were able to lawfully ‘roll over’ hearing dates they had initially established at BC courthouse registry and controlled through BC Civil Rules process (and paid money for) initiated in January and February 2014 until the April 23rd and April 24th, 2014 dates.
Bakonyi/Cambridge under the BC Civil Rules had no say in the April 23rd, or 24th, 2014 court dates.
Bakonyi/Cambridge are badly beaten by Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins who possessed a better awareness of BC Civil Rules. Ultimately Bakonyi/Cambridge is ‘squeezed’ by Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins into committing the clear criminal act of planning and preparing a fraudulent Order Made After Application, May 28, 2013 ignoring Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution Order of April 7, 2014 valid until the end of day April 30, 2014.
(GPR -’the lawyers’ walked into every trap).
It is quite obvious that Davies J. and Smithe J. did not even read any of the file when Bakonyi/Cambridge slithered into court on April 23 & 24, 2014. Had they done so, they would have seen within one minute of due diligence that Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins controlled the April 23, & April 24, 2014 Chambers Hearing Dates.
Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins (and another respondent party) had attended in person to the April 7, 2014 hearing which produced the Stay of Execution Order.
It is the only time that H130330 provided a bona fide hearing involving Ita Robbins.
The *“Barrister” Glen P. Robbins, who Grauer J. referred to as “ingenious” in October 2011, who Justice Linda Loo referred to as “heroic” in 1996, and who Justice Barry Davies exalted “should be treated as a lawyer at all times” (also in 1996), along with his wife fellow 15 (1) solicitor Ita Robbins, proved to be more than capable “solicitors” out dueling Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO on strategic court filings, -following the BC Rules to the letter in the process-. (More “irony”).
Jewish community advocate Ron Bakonyi (“Jca”) & his client Cambridge Mortgage were in serious trouble on the foreclosure file as a chilly winter reared itself in January February 2014. They had colluded in a fraud hearing likely with the Justice (Fenlon) participating to ‘steal’ an order nisi (foreclosure) May 9, 2013.
Between the 3 of them, one a constitutional judge, they managed to Contemptuously disregard Grauer J.’s Reasons entirely.
Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis Roadburg/BMO believed they were entitled to superior access to the Courts then Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins (ordinary people), and further, must have believed they had the judges in their pocket too, given the events as we know them.
One could easily argue from these events that the Law Society of BC and BC Attorney General had control of Constitutionally appointed Justices including: Fenlon J., Hinkson CJ (Davies J., Smith
Jewish community advocate (“Jca”) Robert Ellis Roadburg and his client BMO Bank had enjoined themselves upon Bakonyi’s clients Cambridge Mortgage and Peet and Cowan Financial court filing fraud contributing further court filing frauds including the original foreclosure petition with no disclosure of potential triable issues. In for a little fraud in for some big fraud
Thereafter Jewish community advocates Jca Ron Bakonyi & Cambridge Mortgage Investment + (z)Robert Ellis Roadburg, purposefully enjoined their mutual efforts to plan, compose, produce and file an Order Made After Application, where no Application was ever filed in the first place and no substantive BC Civil Rule 8 hearing ever produced through Chambers Division of the Civil court or Trial Scheduling (hearings over 2 hours in length).
Thereafter, ‘these’ Jca lawyers (according to Bakonyi at foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013) were in contact with the Law Society of BC and Jca (Secret Society Mason) Kleisinger/LSBC before the hearing.
Thereafter, foreclosure justice Fenlon J. H130330 signs this completely fraudulent order, when ‘SHE’ (or her ‘handlers’ including at court registry) ought to have checked the order with the court registry Summary of Filings of activities on the file H130330.
This would have clearly established (to a professional person) that Fenlon J. had already made an order at hearing, an order procedural in nature (not a formal hearing), but a lawful order nonetheless (until it is struck).
AND (T)hereafter ‘these’ Jca lawyers Bakonyi/Cambridge - Robert Ellis Roadburg/BMO -Kleisinger/LSBC used the fraudulent Order Made After Application resplendent with Fenlon J.’s signature itself evidence of Fenlon J.’s own participation in the fraud.
Fenlon added her signature to the criminal filing.
Thus Fenlon J. makes a procedural (informal) order denying Glen P. Robbins a right of audience at hearing May 9, 2013. Then Fenlon J. places her signature on the fraudulent Order Made After Application directly relating to the denial of right of audience made at hearing.
Absent this participation in the fraud, the Order Made After Application filed jointly by BakonyiCambridge and Ellis/Bank of Montreal May 28, 2013 the ex parte order from Master Tokarek would never have occurred.
The 2nd phase in the foreclosure process is the Conduct of Sale hearing. Bakonyi/Cambridge set the date for their application for conduct of sale order on December 9, 2013.
This order is set before a Master who under BC Rules is NOT permitted to make a Final Order in any event. The only way a Master could provide a Final Order is if one party did not attend a hearing.
Sneaky bastards these lawyers eh?
The fraudulent Order Made After Application of May 28, 2013 was designed by Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis/BMO (‘BCEBMO’) specifically with the Conduct of Sale and keeping Ita Robbins case heard in mind.
Both these two deceptive Jca lawyers had made false statements and obtained the foreclosure through deception and fraud along with Fenlon J. they needed to pull the same stunt with a Master (and not a Justice who COULD make Final Orders).
Glen P. Robbins advises the Court: “It’s like they owned the place.”
“Voila” the fraudulent Order Made After Application is filed under H130330 - arrangements are made to have Fenlon J. sign this fraudulent document knowing full well she had already made a previous (procedural) order on May 13, 2013.
Had Glen P. Robbins shown up to the Conduct of Sale hearing Dec. 9, 2013 before Master Tokarek, with only the de minimis procedural order of Fenlon denying right of audience May 13, 2013 ‘in play’, a proper hearing with Master Tokarek could ensue to decide right of audience on that day including the Enduring Powers of Attorney exchanged between Glen and Ita Robbins (like wedding vows?), and filed with BC Land Title, with Glen P. Robbins Enduring Power of Attorney registered on Land (September 2013), Triable Issues, and revelation of the fraudulent Order Made After Application, Bakonyi/Cambridge’s Ellis Roadburg/BMO goose would have been surely cooked December 9, 2013.
Without the fraud Order Made After Application fraud Tokerek would be forced to send the matter to Trial Scheduling.
Tokarek refused to hear from Glen P. Robbins on December 9, 2013 application for Conduct of Sale because of the fraudulent Order Made After Application file May 28, 2013. How convenient - two frauds on the Court - first the foreclosure order of May 13, 2013 then the conduct of sale order.
What fraud will these sneaky LSBC lawyers be involved in next? Read On:
Bakonyi was in a state of panic. His client Cambridge panicked, Robert Ellis Roadburg obviously panicked. BMO obviously panicked, the Law Society of BC panicked, longtime Law Society of BC ‘policeman’ as lawyer Chris Hinkson panicked.
Clear and unequivocal circumstantial evidence suggests Hinkson CJ already caused Glen P. Robbins to be listed on Google as a pedophile for 3 years (2001-2004) - and--
--now his friends in the legal industry were going to be identified as mixed up in an awful fraud involving lawyers well known as Jca, because Grauer J. considers that subsection 15 (5) of “unclear”, “redundant” language to be “ironic” (as opposed to just incompetent) - the abuse of court processes from those who most use them, and Abuse of High Office - and the direct involvement of nearly one half the 12 protaganists being of Jewish ethnocentricity in a case involving a rogue province (British Columbia) and usury IS the most dramatically “irony” of all.
The only way out of this would be more fraud by BC’s legal community and BC Government.
Three Supreme Court of Canada judges in Glen P. Robbins original application for appeal of the Grauer J. order (35302), and three Supreme Court of Canada judges hearing Ita Robbins application for extension of time to file leave to appeal (she did file an ordinary appeal) were all of Jewish background as well. It cannot be an untoward comment against ethnocentricity if it's ironic as well.
It is important here to point out that Glen P. Robbins application for an extension of time to file leave to appeal the Grauer J. order of subsections of the Legal Profession Act is permitted by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet Ita Robbins application for an extension of time to file leave to appeal of the foreclosure on her house of over 20 years is rejected.
And where Grauer J. had gone to great lengths to compliment Glen P. Robbins effectively calling Robbins a ‘genius’ for his application of Catholic Theology to his ‘standing his wife’s shoes’ - an argument consistent with the well known Sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church relating to husband and wife being wife.
And once Ian Mulgrew at the Vancouver Sun had written this up - (the case is everywhere online now) - these Jewish community advocates must have gone nuts.
Will Ian Mulgrew be permitted to finish his story? Most of it remains untold. The fraud in covering up unregulated lending in British Columbia - involving every aspect of the British Columbia Justice System inclusive of (1) court registry, (2) Court proper, (3) Justices, (4) lawyers, (5) Law Society of BC, (6) BC Attorney General's Office, and (7) BC Government (Executive) is undeniable.
It’s Unbelievable.
But it occurred, and a likely part of the motivation may have been the publication of Glen P. Robbins legal arguments before Grauer J. relating to the Catholic religion.
Like Jesus himself, Glen P. Robbins was confronting the New Age Pharisees (“NAP”) controlling the Canadian Legal System, (at least as it involved his and his wife Ita’s) massive Interest fraud, left unregulated by the Government as part of Cabinet’s economic plan. One man born a child in a family of 7 children in a Saanich BC manger near Swan Lake farm-a country boy - defends his Bonnie Bride and the family home against the predations of crooked lenders, where a very noteworthy group of Jewish lawyers (many of them Judges) Jca committing fraud - where (1) false statements were made, (2) document forgeries and (3) falsehoods left undefended by civil filings and so called vetted justices, and (4) where contempt of fellow constitutional justices orders are ignored.
Looks tailor made for Mel Gibson.
In tandem with this Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council, a Complaint will be made to The Canadian Human Rights Commission for discrimination against Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins on the basis of religious grounds (along with a number of other complaints).
The “Fundamental Freedoms” section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes at subsection (a) “Freedom of conscience and religion”.
What did Jesus Christ say about usury: “If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with the, thou shall not be to him as a creditor, neither shall ye lay upon him interest.”
Ita Robbins, will also make a case for discrimination based on gender. Why did her husband receive an order for extension of time to file leave to appeal (35302) of poorly written Legal Profession Act provisions and why did she not, particularly when she had filed a regular appeal as her husband Glen had done at BC Court of Appeal 35772?
Gender Equality in Canada is a right enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is further supported through its enshrinement in the Preamble to the Charter added 2008.
What possessed lawyer Ron Bakonyi to ignore a clearly emphatic order like the Stay of Execution Order of Justice Kloegman (Sanatove)?
Kloegman J. directs that a Stay of Execution Order be placed on the file from April 7, 2014 until April 30th, 2014 midnight, and at the last minute in the hearing gives custody to Bakonyi/Cambridge - (because he is a real lawyer).
Bakonyi seeks specifically the privilege to prepare and file the orders, obtain the court clerk notes (available not later than April 9, 2014) from court registry, and submit them as draft order for Kloegman J. to sign pursuant to the BC Rules governing court processes and procedures.
In the Court Transcript of the April 7, 2014 hearing under (H130330) Kloegman J. indicates early that ‘Bakonyi/Cambridge’s application for a hearing of his vacant possession is doomed to fail’, as it is out order GPR’s application and IR’s appeal. Her Ladyship killed Bakonyi/Cambridge’s chances of success by her orders, in particular the Stay of Execution Order, which by inference of scheduling implications involved kicking the case months down the road.
Ita Robbins application for leave to appeal an extension of time to file her leave application at Supreme Court of Canada 35772 is submitted February 2014, and accepted in mid March 2014. The S.C.C. Registry tells GPR that Bakonyi received approval of filing March 18, 2014, with Ita Robbins receiving acknowledgement of approval on March 20, 2014.
Bakonyi filed his doomed to fail application for vacant possession order at or about March 22, 2014, Hinkson CJ’s and partner in crime Michael Kleisinger LSBC’s court hearing date was rushed for March 21, 2014. Ita Robbins’ appeal of conduct of sale order (default judgment no defence filed) & Glen P. Robbins application to be added as a party, is originally scheduled for March 20, 2014, but must be rescheduled because Bakonyi decides at the last minute he wants a holiday, goes to court to get an order adjourning that date. (GPR setting the stage for the robbery).
Bakonyi’s holiday is the cause for delay of Ita Robbins hearing, plus Bakonyi makes no application in his Apri 7, 2014 vacant possession application to the Court for an extension of time to file his defence of the appeal without arguments which he had neglected to file pursuant to the BC Civil Rules.
Bakonyi actually applies to the court for an order to adjourn the March 20, 2014 hearing so that he can go on holiday. He attends ex parte and is granted the order (with Costs {how sick is this?}. Thus, Bakonyi/Cambridge (and the courts again) are responsible for delays.
Had Ita and Glen Robbins had opportunity to be heard as the April 7, 2014 orders and directions from Kloegman J. clearly set out, they would have, among other orders, sought an order that the direction of Kloegman J. provided, authorizing Bakonyi/Cambridge to file a defence late, should not have been permitted, and a Default Judgment affirming the successful appeal of the conduct of sale order on the basis that is was obtained by the court fraud of Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis/BMO in March 31 2013, the corrupt crooked Order Made After Application should have been made.
I/We note that Bakonyi/Cambridge obtained the fraudulent orders April 23, and April 24, 2014 - 4 days after Easter Sunday that year, a historical note in light of the language in Grauer J.’s ‘ironic’ Reasons for Judgement including an unclear and redundant subsection of the LPA 15 (5), which serves to support the equivalent ironic complaint against the Jewish lawyers and Judges and to protect usury, to be advanced to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Once again, It’s ironic to say the least.
Here is what Judge Grauer said in his Reasons for Judgment @ Line 4 Para (43) on the subject of LPA 15 (1) (can be a lawyer if not paid) which Glen P. Robbins stitches to the constitutional discretion of judges in right of audience matters:
“Mr. Robbins' argument is more ingenious. He points metaphorically to the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist. As bread through the process of Transubstantiation becomes the body, so does he, via his Powers of Attorney, become his wife in Action No.: BCSC S-106413.”
“On this analysis, he is in effect his wife...acting in person as permitted by s.15 (1) (a), not Glen P. Robbins acting in the name of another person as prohibited by s. 15 (5).”
“It is a nice point,” says Grauer J.
At page 12 Para (44) Grauer J. responds to Glen P. Robbins transubstantiation argument where his Lordship reasons: “In addressing it, I find I do not have to reconsider the conclusion of the 13th session of the Council of Trent held in October 1551.” “It is sufficient to note that the theological concept of transubstantiation is best left to the realm of religion and has no application in the Power of Attorney Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 370.” “That act equates the relationship between a donor and her attorney to that between a principal and agent. It does not convert the agent into the principle.” “They remain distinct both empirically and substantially. The Powers of Attorney, at best, authorize Mr. Robbins to do what his wife…can lawfully by an attorney an attorney/agent.”
Just imagine how highly paid legal counsel Elizabeth Lyall senior partner with Fasken Martineau law firm in Vancouver BC and 2nd chair Jca-(z)Freemason Michael Kleisinger of LSBC must have felt, foolish and ashamed no doubt.
Imagine how the Law Society of BC Executive Director Tim McGee former legal counsel with (z)Rogers Cable felt when he was forced to take control of the original leave application defence for the Law Society under (SCC 35302) (S111171)?
His members - were effectively and obviously trounced at Trial and the Vancouver Sun paper published these highlights.
But wait, there's more: Vancouver Sun writer Ian Mulgrew decides to write up the Grauer J. Reasons in a (fairly) large article in that (z)‘gazette’. Much of the article referenced the religious styled arguments made by Glen P. Robbins - including Grauer J. referring to Robbins as “ingenious” and the Law Society of BC as “clumsy”, & “redundant”.
On those statements from Grauer J. alone, who does the reader believe won the Trial?
At Trial September 19, 2011 (S111171) before Grauer J., Glen P. Robbins is able to draw Grauer J. from the ‘snoozefest’ of vacuous arguments offered by the Law Societies Elizabeth Lyall and Michael Kleisinger, into a discussion that involves the Sacrament of Marriage and Glen P. Robbins Right of Audience - supported by Powers of Attorney, far more interesting that the pitifully written legislation of the Legal Profession Act and Authority to Practice Law, specifically 15 (1) and 15 (5) which on their face are incoherent, how is that in the public interest?
When reading Grauer J. 's Reasons one might also note the finesse with which Glen P. Robbins places Grauer’s attention at Hearing on the 15 (1) provisions (ordinary people can be lawyers if no money or benefit is received). When Section 15 (5) was amended in May 2012 it lost words “redundant” to 15 (1).
Section 15(1) of the Legal Profession Act is thus shown to be more important than stripped down 15 (5).
A person armed with the facts and sufficient capacity would have known on April 7, 2014 in matter of vacant application of Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins - the Fat Lady had for all intents and purposes already sung for Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis Roadburg/BMO Bank of Montreal.
Law Society of BC had just finished paying $40 million from another real estate fraud case
The Law Society of BC had just paid off the most recent $40 million fraud their members had been involved in, when Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO Bank of Montreal decided to defraud the courts filing a phony Order Made After Application in the Cambridge foreclosure H130330 May 28, 2013.
Imagine the further embarrassment and sense of revulsion the Public would have felt if the truth had come out with Ita Robbins v Cambridge H130330 35772 after the publication of their embarrassing effort against Glen P. Robbins (S111171) (35302)?
What would the Public think of the justice system and the office holders within it if it were published through this Coronavirus period (or any time thereafter)?
On April 7, 2014 following the proclamation of the Stay of Execution Order on BCSC docket H130330, Bakonyi/Cambridge suddenly realized they were going to be found out, exposed, humiliated.
Ita Robbins files direct appeal of the order nisi and appeal of Fenlon J.’s procedural order on the right of audience.
Ita Robbins filed a direct appeal to the BC Court of Appeal while Bakonyi for Cambridge failed to provide a defence to within the time limits for so doing, and without obtaining an extension of time from the Court.
This appeal relates to the manner in which the foreclosure order was obtained described from Transcript evidence provided, with Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO (1) lying to the Court about the Grauer J. Reasons, including (2) ad hoc and inaccurate statements to the Court regarding the Reasons of Judgment of Justice Grauer made October 3, 2011, and (3) most specifically, the incorrect interpretation of the order relating to subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act as it is misapplied to right of audience matters (4) Most importantly, the appeal would expose the complete document fraud of the Order Made After Application filed in late March 2013, two weeks following the foreclosure hearing of May 9, 2013.
This appeal relates to the manner in which the foreclosure order was obtained described from Transcript evidence provided, with Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg/BMO (1) lying to the Court about the Grauer J. Reasons, including (2) ad hoc and inaccurate statements to the Court regarding the Reasons of Judgment of Justice Grauer made October 3, 2011, and (3) most specifically, the incorrect interpretation of the order relating to subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act as it is misapplied to right of audience matters (4) Most importantly, the appeal would expose the complete document fraud of the Order Made After Application filed in late March 2013, two weeks following the foreclosure hearing of May 9, 2013.

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