Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 14 -I Robbins 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) Wagner, Abella, Rot
  Jul 04, 2020

Commentary
continued from No.: 13
No.: 14 commences a canvass of the Constitution and Charter Right abuses which occur in both Glen and Ita Robbins cases featuring a cross over of corrupt acts by State Actors and sub State actors common to both Ita and Glen Robbins.
At some points in this examination Glen P. Robbins offers comment. An offer to settle is provided by Glen P. Robbins with remind of the amount of damages sought by Ita Robbins.
Constitution/Charter Rights
IV Legislative Power Privileges, etc.,..
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and the House of Commons and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by the Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers should not confirm any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act hled, enjoyed, and exercised by the...House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof…
*GPR: Are Judges in Great Britain permitted to behave in a corrupt fashion from time to time? Immunity will never be the same folks.
VI Distribution of Legislative Powers (Federal Power) 1A. The Public Debt & Property, 2. The Regulation of Trade of Commerce; 5. Postal Service (JWR); 14. Currency & Coinage; 15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money, INTEREST; 27. The Criminal Law.
*GPR: Property is referenced in 1A and as part of the powers of provinces. Number 5 the Postal Service relates to Bakonyi/Cambridge issuing a court order Bill of Costs obtained through actions which defrauded and held the Court in Contempt. That is using the Postal Service in the commission of a fraud (federal). Jody Wilson Raybould is written to by GPR in 2015 and does no due diligence of he possibility.
*GPR: INTEREST is the big dog here - all Federal - the Interest Act is not a provincial act. There was no Act of the BC Legislature which gave mortgage brokers authority of Interest. Can ‘you people’ find one? How was it that the Competition Bureau had no idea what was going on including proof of the two company laundering of money and Interest with no oversight from regulation of the province or at Land Title Office, in this case, New Westminster. The Competition Bureau was derelict, FICOM in BC who the Competition Bureau of Canada said was responsible for our issues and investigations when written to sent us to the Registrar of self regulating mortgage broker (MICS- federal law) told us that the 98.7% APR was “a clerical error”.
*Every related government agency was faxed copies of all of this correspondence and evidence.
*I would add that Land Title reflected a laundered Interest Rate(s)....two rates no less of 8.9%/9.2% right in the Federal Box where Interest Rates APRs must be disclosed. Land Title says they don’t check documents. The boss of a Land Title in BC must be either a lawyer (oh well) or a Registrar for many years. Like the Court Registry they decline to check documents. ‘Don’t want to be providing legal advice they would all parrot’.
*Last, Ita’s lawyer Michael Rathbone listed Ita as having no independent legal advice with was required. FM who is ESL - paid for a lawyer but didn’t understand and wasn’t told of the 98.7% APR. Lawyers were making millions in these dirty real estate mortgages with no government oversight. No wonder the effort to cover up Ita Robbins v Canada at the Supreme Court of Canada encountered such treachery among and between the highest appointed persons in the legal system.
Section 92 - Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislature: @ 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
Authority of Parliament ….”and where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.” If the Provinces control of Civil Rights exist in contravention of Canada’s Charter of Rights the latter applies.
VII Judicature Appointment of Judges 96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District and County Courts in each Province.
Tenure of office of Judges 99. (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. 100. The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District and County Courts...shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
*GPR -This good behaviour language is a bit of a scam, as I read the Constitution good behaviour has nothing to do with the quite literal interpretation it might normally attract by reasonable people armed with the facts. There is no true method for determining whether Judges are Independent except by say so - your appointed you must be Independent. Have you ever heard anything so stupid.
General Court of Appeal etc.
101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from Time to Time provide for the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of a General Court of Appeal from Canada, and for the Establishment of any additional Courts…
Interest of Provincial Public Debts 104. The annual Interest of the Public Debt of the several Provinces of Canada (the west)...shall form the Second Chapter on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. Canada to be responsible for Provincial Debts
111. Canada shall be liable for the Debts and Liabilities of each Province existing at the Union.
Continuance of existing Laws, Courts, Offices, etc…. 129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in force in Canada...and all Courts of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, and all legal Commissions, Powers, and Authorities, and all Offices, Judicial, Administration and Ministerial, existing therein at the Union...shall continue - as if the union has not been made; subject nevertheless to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislatures of the respective Province, according to the Authority of the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act.
130. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides all Offices of the several Provinces having Duties to discharge in relation to Matters other than those coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively the Legislation of the Provinces shall be offices of Canada, and shall continue to discharge the Duties of their respective Offices under the same Liabilities, Responsibilities and Penalties as if Union had not been made.
Oath of Allegiance - *(GPR: I am not sure if Judges and lawyers swear an Oath or not-but I don’t think so).
Constitution Act, 1982 Part 1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that represent the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee - (not a typo) the rights set out--subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
*GPR I am certain we can all agree that there is no subject limit necessary here for what happened to Ita Robbins and Glen P. Robbins
Fundamental Freedoms
Fundamental Freedoms Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other medium of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Democratic Rights Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Legal Rights
Life, Liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search and Seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons..; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the defendant...by way of habeas corpus…
Treatment or Punishment
12. Everyone has the right not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
*I suspect we can find no evidence of any intention by any State Actor through the events of either of these cases involving Ita Robbins (FM) or Glen Robbins, where any of the Rights suggested from Sections 7-12 were even remotely considered. Access to justice was denied or compromised from court registry to the courtroom involving BC Law Society members including those who are now judges. The effort to deny Ita & Glen Robbins their Legal Rights was undeniable and extensive. The credibility of the entire Canadian Legal System is on trial.
*Glen P. Robbins is dragged into court by the Law Society of BC with two sets of petitions without any valid basis (Ita Robbins provided affidavit indicating that she had filed the original case against BMO under 15 (5), and settles the 15 (4) complaint with all parties except BMO. GPR agrees to LSBC demands prior to September 2011 hearing. 15 (4) is the primary complaint. 15 (5) the Coronavirus type provisions of secondary importance are unclear and redundant. Judge Grauer’s Reasons don’t match up to the conclusion as ably pointed out herein.
*GPR’s name is pumped all through the news over this stupid case (S111171). Later in 2014 Michael Kleisinger of LSBC drags Robbins back into court while *(S111171) remains open until 2015. Kleisinger is able to rush to judgment by abusing process and the rules commencing a vexatious litigant claim by filing a Rule 8 Interlocutory application in the midst of an extraordinary Chambers Assize Project (which took the extraordinary step of permitting backlogged applications to the court to be organized through Trial Scheduling and not Chambers Division).
So Law Society cheater Michael Kleisinger in combination with his nefarious ex legal partner Chris Hinkson saw the opportunity to play to slippery stereotype by commencing a new claim of brand new subject matter through an interlocutory application. It was intentional on both their parts.
We know there is history between Glen P. Robbins and Law Society of BC members. Robbins has crushed or humiliated long time members at one hearing or another. 1996, 1997 - one knockout after another. Judges were indifferent to who the parties were back then. It was no skin off their nose whether GPR was a pro se self litigant. The best argument won the day.
When Kleisinger and the BC Attorney General were made aware that GPR was seeking Default Judgment from his 2000-2001 BC Human Rights case - and that Chris Hinkson would be lined by affidavit to cause for damages - the Reader must feel the panic these big shots must have felt.
GPR’s lawyer John Motiuk unbeknownst to GPR was being investigated by the Law Society of BC for taking money in trust and through this process with his (then) lawyer Chris Hinkson it was discovered that Motiuk was bipolar - and off his medication. Motiuk was not only representing GPR at BCHRT, but also (ironically) Ita Robbins at BC Court of Appeal.
At BCHRT GPR had instructed Motiuk to sever the hearings of 5 complainants once terrible inconsistencies in their testimony were discovered. By severing the hearings, the complainants would not be able to hear the testimony of the others. Motiuk filed the application, BCHRT adjourned it unilaterally and then over a year later while Hinkson had control of Motiuk and without hearing that application of Glen P. Robbins, requested applications from both GPR & BC AG on the subject of the separate hearings.
The BC AG filed an application but Motiuk failed to filed GPR’s application and Motiuk did not show up to this hearing so the severed trials did not occur. To this day the matter of Motiuk’s adjourned application on behalf of GPR was not considered.
We know a distraught Motiuk informs GPR just prior to trial that his lawyer (Chris Hinkson) instructed him to throw the case. The evidence of this is in the pleadings of the lawsuit filed by GPR - who never attended the hearings to defend himself - knowing it would validate a rigged hearing. In the pleadings of the document filed May 2001 included the fact about Hinksons’ bad faith influence.
In furtherance of GPR’s claim including for damages for defamation related to the BC AG and BCHRT referencing him as a pedophile in Reasons (a vicious assault on anyone’s character by a Tribunal member (judge) who was disabled and in a wheelchair, likely impotent managing a case involving sexual harassment. GPR says figure out the bias), Glen P. Robbins sought documents through the BC Privacy Commissioner related to John Motiuks troubles with the Law Society of BC while he was working for GPR and Ita Robbins which covered the exact same time period as the BCHRT matter.
Eight boxes were obtained by the Law Society of BC who refused to permit GPR to go through them in preparation of evidence for his Default Judgment application.
So Michael Kleisinger and Hinkson as described are faced with the dilemma that Hinkson, now a BC Court of Appeal Judge soon to be moved over to BC Supreme Court Chief Justice is about to be featured in an affidavit for a multi million Default Judgement against the BC Government, and Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins are about to blow the lid on a usery scheme involving non bank lenders and including BC lawyers and Land Title Office.
Can there be any doubt about the Intent of cause damage to Glen P. Robbins?
Glen P. Robbins appeals Grauer’s 2011 case versus the Law Society of BC to the BC Court of Appeal. This appeal process occurs between 2011 and 2015 concluded at the Supreme Court of Canada (S111171) (35302). GPR keeps it simple and efficient. He had costs awarded against him and believed (quite rightly) that he won the case and appeals seeking Double Costs.
Robbins realizes that overturning the Costs and awarding him Double Costs would be a noteworthy outcome. Lacking courage and likely worse, the (4) the BC Court of Appeal Judges dismiss the appeal on the basis of judicial discretion. During this time period as outlined in the body of submission of facts the BC Legislature had amending subsection 15 (5) rendering the provisions of the law very different from the time Grauer J. heard the case and castigated its lack of clarity. Had Glen P. Robbins known this he would have made his appeal to both the BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada more ambitious.
Can there be any doubt from these submissions that Grauer J’s Reasons for Judgment including his order on 15 (5) are inconsistent and that this was a completely unfair outcome relative to his own Reasoning? 15 (5) is so bad it has to be sent back to the Elected persons for amendment. Shouldn’t GPR have been made aware of this considering that the amendment provisions were advanced to the BC Legislature initially just weeks after the Grauer J. decision?
GPR’s business Calvary Publishing Corp (was ‘ironically’ supposed to be Cavalry lol) was audited by Canada Revenue Agency in 1997 at earnings of $2.2 million or thereabouts. An Independent report/business plan provided to GPR by MBA Brian Archer (John Reynolds) and included in BC Supreme Court matter CIBC/Van City versus Tannis, Tannis and Dauo indicated that earnings for GPR would likely grow to $5 million to $10 million per year over the next 5 years as GPR moved to more specialized type publishing from the production of sports programs.
The audited amount of $2.2 million annual earnings would be worth $3,500,000 in annual revenues today. If we took the document audited earnings and considered them in today’s dollars and then factored in the Archer business plan under court affidavit an amount of $5.2 million over 22 years is not unreasonable. (Remember Boss Power received $40 million (today’s dollars) with not substantive evidence that their uranium mine was worth anything).
Obviously the impact Hinksons’s actions had on the BCHRT case interfering with justice and GPR’s right to a proper defence, manipulating a lawyer Hinkson knew to be mentally ill and off his meds and ignoring by way of collusion and corruption any of GPR’s Charter Rights, is by reason of at least causal inference of liability to the loss of GPR’s business and publication of the defamatory material (pedophile), caused by Hinkson, BCHRT officers, lawyers and the BC Attorney General.
Boss Power asserted their claim in court that they were going to lose $90 million because of one singular application mistake. Amidst this laundry list of court frauds, contempt of court processes, rules, rights and on and one obviously Glen P. Robbins (Ita Robbins) cases are a much greater abuse of law then the Boss Power matter.
On the basis of Glen P. Robbins unwavering determination to succeed he has built a phenomenal public opinion enterprise. This enterprise can be advanced to produce huge annual income with and influx of cash and with cooperation of government.
To this end and with evidence that Glen P. Robbins was willing to take zero dollars compensation if his wife Ita was immediately settled with (clean hands) and with Premier John Horgan without dignity of response (though he was a proper person to make offer to owing to escalation protocols) Glen P. Robbins makes offer to settle as follows on a without prejudice basis:
$20,000,000 Canadian dollars to be paid immediately to Glen P. Robbins. 60 days following this payment, a BC Government loan to a polling enterprise named by GPR at 3 percent per annum with one year free of interest and with government directed person on the Board (someone like Carole James comes to mind - socially conscious with fiscal experience).
Upon the transparent expenditure of $17,500,000 by PollingCo (office design etc. child care models etc) the BC Government will provide payment of another $20 million to PollingCo which GPR will place as loan to company (also at 3 percent per annum) on the books. So for purposes of clarity $17.5 million would be expedited of securing assets and developing PollingCo leaving theoretically $22,500,000 in PollingCo’s account.
The Government of BC will guarantee $40 million per annum to PollingCo for work. Within 2 years PollingCo will add in Corporate plan for revenue as well. At the point where revenues were $100 million per year for 2 consecutive years, Glen P. Robbins will provide back 40 percent of PollingCo to the Government of BC for $1 good and valuable type thing which may sell that chalk a block or retain it. Any sale of that 40 percent to private interests would have to be approved by GPR within reason.
Glen P. Robbins envisions to production of 1,000 jobs in PollingCo in British Columbia using state of the art office design and child care facility. These jobs would work well for persons who had worked on political campaigns and such, social science students at college and university, as well as journalism students. Perhaps ICBC employees might to well in the business. In any event GPR would seek advice and consult on these matters and would prefer not to have a hand in the day to day.
Ita Robbins had indicated her settlement proposal herein. Generally speaking Ita Robbins will settle all matters and represents and warrant that others (FM) (2 Jane Doe daughters) for $9,500,000 million.
Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex,...
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, and heard...in English or French.
Enforcement of guarantees of rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedom, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
24. (1)
Application of the Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters…(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect to all matters within the authority of...each province.
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Part 111
Equalization and Regional Disparities Commitment to promote equal opportunities 36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislature, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to: (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well being of Canadians; (b) ...economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
*GPR The Courts and access to justice must be considered an essential service not just for persons involved in the criminal system but for all participants in any type of court action including civil matters.
PART VI Amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867
Part VII General Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canadais the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and event.
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes: (a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
*The antagonist lawyers and judges being Complained about, we assert, did wilfully and with a collective mind with each of their roles in this corruption known to the other, with the damages caused by some more fulsome than the others, produce an beneficial outcome for themselves and their allies INTENDED to ignore the Constitution entirely. Treating the BC Court of Appeal as if it's the last court of appeal in the country for a BC resident.
*Ignoring the Constitution as completely as has occurred in these cases before the Reader reveals a transparent effort by individuals expected as judges to be aware of the Constitution and Charter Rights from their education at law school. The theory must then be - did these judges go to bad law schools or are they simply bad lawyers who became bad judges because of the huge political influence in the selection of judges.
*British Columbia’s law courts were made to have primacy over Canada’s Supreme Court.

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