Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Ita Robbins et al file $9 Million Victim Compensation - BC Civil Forfeiture (Vol 2) Subject Honeysuckle Lane
Bad guys: Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan, BMO Bank, Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Law Society BC, BC Attorney General, RCMP   Jan 04, 2021

Commentary
Continued from Vol 1.
The Application for Declaration of Unlawful Activity (Brief of the Binder Submissions) as a Basis for Payment to Eligible Person:
Peet and Cowan Financial Services, a lender doing business under the BC Mortgage Brokers Act at the time of the Unlawful Activity period, entered into a financing contract with Ita Robbins (and another) in December 2011. The contract is undertaken under the Government of British Columbia letterhead. At the time of this contract Mortgage Brokers were self regulating. On page 3 of the agreement the statutory Annual Percentage Rate Disclosure is 98.7%. The total contributors to the APR calculation in the contract support a type of charge card simple interest. But this is not how mortgages are calculated. They are calculated to actuarial outcomes (“APR”)..
When the money lender discloses the APR (later described by the unregulated version of Registrar of the BC Mortgage Brokers as a “clerical error” (bad faith)), and if there is any confusion as to the amount stipulated, it is incumbent upon the lender in such circumstances to provide a third party actuarial assessment. Not inexpensive by any means.
The criminal agreement APR in the loan agreement between PCFS and Ita Robbins is clearly criminal on its face (under Gov of BC letterhead) thus unconscionable by legal inference and is asserted by the Applicant to be Unlawful Activity.
Rather than file the clearly illegal (unconscionable) contract as mortgage at 98.7%, PCFS instead launders this illegal agreement through a second sister company Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation, (“CMIC”) owned by the two same persons which in turn files a mortgage in its name as 8.95/9.02% APR in the Land Title registration document for registering property in the specific Box on the registration form indicating the Federal Interest Act.
Ita Robbins is not provided with Independent Legal Advice by lawyer Michael Rathbone prior to the CMIC mortgage registration and Unlawful Activity. Both the criminal/unconscionable loan and registration are undertaken by another Law Society lawyer not Bakonyi who becomes CMIC and PCFS lawyer under the foreclosure and lawsuit filed by Ita Robbins in New Westminster court 149328 prior to the petition filing.
The two companies owned by the same person conducting unconscionable (Unlawful) business is in breach of the Federal Competition Act and under the test of this federal Act is Unlawful Activity.
The first contract of 98.7% is Unlawful, laundering that Unlawful contract @ 98.7% rate through a second company owned by persons who owned the first company and changing the interest rate is Unlawful. It is both a fraud on Ita Robbins and a fraud on the Land Title Registry Office. It necessitated planning, a format of business activity that must be considered wilful and Unlawful Activity.
It is an Unlawful Activity to register a fraudulent rate of Interest under the Interest Act of Canada and Criminal Code of Canada.
Again, Ita Robbins sues PCFS and CMIC at Supreme Court New Westminster commencing the action in February 2013 BCSC 149328. Under the amended claims featured include allegations of this Unlawful Activity.
In March 2013 following the lawsuit against it, CMIC filed petition H130330 in Vancouver Supreme Court seeking foreclosure orders against the subject property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC. At the time the Rules called for service to an unrepresented person closest to the Registry.
(The petition document fails to provide triable issues in its affidavit).
Some time after filing it’s petition BC Lawyers Ron Bakonyi (CMIC & PCFS) file a notice of hearing document in conjunction with adverse respondent BMO Bank, lawyer Robert Ellis, but fail to serve the document.
The notice of hearing contains irregular and untruthful information, and should never have been accepted for filing by the BC Court Registry, a determination made easily by any person in that position predicated on the information provided by Bakonyi & Ellis on the face of the document.
The document contains false information on its face and is accepted by the court before the expiration of the respondents time period for filing a response.. Independent Legal advice obtained by Ita and Glen Robbins, from BC Lawyer Ross Davidson says that the Notice of Hearing document is improper.
Ita Robbins complains the Notice of Hearing document was never served upon her, a hallmark of her interaction with CMIC and respondent Bank of Montreal, (the latter seeking nominal payment relief from the court of some type unrelated to the subject petition for foreclosure), more likely there to assist Bakonyi who is not the sharpest legal knife in the drawer). Ellis couldn’t beat GPR - Bakonyi wouldn’t stand a chance.
The entire Interest Rate scam and property laundering/fraud will be discovered. The BC Government’s participation in money laundering and fraud will also be discovered. Remember the foreclosure hearing is just days prior to the BC Election in 2013.
Glen P Robbins says that had the fraud been discovered the BC Public would have been protected from the massive real estate fraud which occurred soon thereafter.
The notice of hearing document is an Unlawful Activity on its own, but it provided more as a contributor to the overall Unlawful Activity engaged in by both lawyers Bakonyi and Ellis on behalf of their clients PCFS, CMIC and BMO.
The foreclosure hearing was held May 9, 2013. In attendance are Bakonyi for CMIC, Ellis for BMO, Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”) pro se lawyer for Ita Robbins and another. Glen P. Robbins has been proclaimed by Judge Grauer of BC Supreme Court to have an interest in the subject property it is residence too (BCSC S111171 Law Society of BC (“LSBC”) Oct. 3, 2011).
Judge Grauer also provided in his Reasons from trial that GPR has the absolute right to seek an audience before any Judge to speak on any persons behalf including his wife with the consent of the Judge. Grauer J also references the Subject Property of the petition with respect to GPR by saying that GPR has an interest in the property, ‘it's his residence too.’
A Judge at BC Supreme Court operates under the Federal Judges Act and has the constitutional discretion to give or withhold an audience to any person before them, or to put conditions on that person’s right of audience (including professional lawyers). This discretion must be supported with reasons particularly if the application for order is predicated on an application to the Court in relation to that specific subject.
(BC Case law reveals a person with vexatious proceedings orders across the country and a much more credible problematic history with Law Societies permitted to argue over the length of a year for the right audience).
Bakonyi and Ellis lie to the Judge at foreclosure hearing (Fenlon) under H130330. They tell Fenlon that Grauer J. had ordered GPR could not speak on anyone’s behalf. They cite an order of Grauer J. under subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act (BC) which no longer exists in law (amended by the BC Legislature a year earlier) and has no relevance to a right of audience at the time. A complete Court fraud. Is Fenlon J. in on the fraud? You tell me. She worked for Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau humiliated by Glen P. Robbins in court, and later humiliated in a Vancouver Sun article by Ian Mulgrew who covered the case.
It is plainly in sight in the Transcript of the Hearing and included in the Legal Binders where the excerpts are most appropriate and sufficient to make this point that a fraud occurs on the Court with the purposeful misrepresentation of the Reasons of Judgement of Christopher Grauer. Obviously this Transcript and these most particular excerpts can be obtained in total from BC Court Services Vancouver Courthouse Smithe Street easily (necessary for this application).
Both Bakonyi and Ellis are guilty (evidence in transcript) of lying to the court in order to obstruct GPR’s right of audience continuing on with the development of their intentional Unlawful Activity.
Keep in mind this fact while reading this Brief of the Facts. That Glen Robbins represented his wife and another without their presence in numerous courtroom hearings including two full one day trials against Robert Ellis with no costs awarded from either trial following the Grauer J. order (all over the Internet @ www.robbins sce research.com). And (I ) GPR, also represented other people at hearings free of charge with success.
At no time did any lawyer including Robert Ellis argue with my right of audience following Grauer J. until this Unlawful Activity at foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013.
BMO lawyer Ellis knew the truth about the Grauer J. Reasons. The Reasons reinforced the constitutional underpinnings of the right of audience before a Justice operating under the Judges Act, and the Federal Government of Canada. Ellis has run for office at the BC Law Society. He is or wants to be an insider at the Law Society, he is an actual legal insider under the Bank Act of Canada with BMO Bank.
Robert Ellis, legal counsel for BMO Bank intentionally organized the fraud on the court before Fenlon J. and the fraud on Ita Robbins with irrevocable Intent. As a lawyer he chose a plan of action of Unlawful Activity, hoping his Insider status as a privileged sub state actor would permit him to do as he chose. Bakonyi followed along at the beginning but later became serial about his own Unlawful Activity.
Fenlon the Judge - a primary State actor in the Unlawful Activity.
Judge Fenlon (evidence in transcript) fails to recuse herself. She has the right to make that determination but she is the former junior partner at the law firm (Fasken Vancouver) and former employee of senior partner of that firm Elizabeth Lyall who opposed GPR in the original matter before Grauer J. She fails to read the Reasons for Judgment of Grauer J under S111171 despite being asked twice (evidence in transcript) by GPR to do so during the lunch recess.
*58. Part II Canadian Judicial Council “Judges Act”
Inquiries concerning Judges: 63 (1) The Council shall, at the request of the Minister or the attorney general of a province, commence an inquiry as to whether a judge of a superior court should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65 (2)(a) to (d). Age or infirmity, (b) having been guilty of misconduct, (c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or (d) having been placed by his or her conduct, or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office.
Judge Fenlon provides the order nisi (foreclosure order) to Law Society member lawyers Ron Bakonyi (Petitioner) for CMIC, and (PCFS) and Robert Ellis for BMO Bank following providing them with a preliminary order denying GPR a right of audience based on lies and misrepresentation made by Bakonyi and Ellis to the Court. This foreclosure order is obtained through Unlawful Activity involving loans and mortgage registrations also Unlawful Activity.
The applicants believe the attorney general David Eby (British Columbia) ought to initiate an inquiry into Fenlon J’s involvement in the Unlawful Activity under the Judges Act and subsection (b) (c) and (d) as described.
The applicants note that the legal binders provided already to Premier Horgan, Attorney General David Eby and outgoing finance minister Carole James (Horgan 3 times, Eby 2 times, James 1 time) have been provided to the Attorney General of Canada, Privy Council and House of Commons. They were also sent to the Senate (who can remove a Judge) but returned and must be resubmitted as something went wrong at the Senate’s end. The applicants also filed Complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council who sent an unsigned letter in response 2 months later establishing an unwillingness to investigate the clear and obvious breach of the Judges Act by Fenlon J. (as heretofore described) and Hinkson CJ.
The response to the former Judge from Nova Scotia who failed to sign or properly deliver his response is located at ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1369.html entitled “Response to letter of acting Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council J. Michael McDonald”. This response is provided November 4, 2020. It is worth noting in the response that Fenlon J. need only apologize for her oversight with full indemnification for doing so. This would overturn the foreclosure order and remedy the wrong or at least get the ball rolling to file the necessary documents to accomplish a remedy.
It is worth noting that this response to J. Michael McDonald features quotes from a current Province of Ontario lawyer (circa 2012) regarding her concerns that sexual harassment is not properly considered by the CJC.
The Judges in these case complaints are clearly circling the wagons. They really screwed up. These are federally appointed Judges known by convention to be associated with the sitting Prime Minister. Conservative Judge, Liberal Judge and so on. Wait, forgive me, there are only just Conservative and Liberal Judges. BC Governments might have had some say in which judges might be the best ones, but make no mistake its the Prime Minister of Canada who picks them constitutionally.
These are political appointments. The New Democrats have not appointed a Judge to any Provincial Court, why any reason to help cover up the actions of two conservative judicial appointments made by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper? Unless the bias is driven by a desire to save the system from embarrassment despite how obvious the Unlawful Activity is?
Continuation of Unlawful Activity under H130330 by Ron Bakonyi for CMIC (PCFS) and Robert Ellis for BMO
So on May 9, 2013 Fenlon J. in preliminary order denied Glen P. Robbins (GPR) a right of audience based on fraud committed at court by Bakonyi and Ellis. Thereafter she grants order nisi. It is worth noting that no application is filed along with the originating petition for foreclosure with the court respecting the right of audience matter.
No evidence is adduced at foreclosure hearing by request of the petitioner and nominal respondent to the Judge to deny GPR a right of audience other than the Reasons for Judgment of Grauer J. which as indicated in Transcript testimony Fenlon J. fails to read despite GPR pleading with her to do so and his further pleading for adjournment. There was no legal prejudice to any party granting an adjournment given the variability of the redemption period.
The Law Society of BC members and Judges accused of Unlawful Activity by the applicants want to bury the matter and not have it honestly heard on its merits. The Court frauds they have enabled through their friends and associates in the BC Liberal governing party with the Law Society of BC and Attorney General specifically entangled - if discovered, would bring both the justice and political systems into complete disrepute.
With plans to allow casino money laundering and money laundering in real estate likely well underway, Ita and Glen P. Robbins had to be stopped no matter the cost.
As former BC Supreme Court Assistant Chief Justice has determined (end of November 2020) money laundering added (5%) to the BC Real Estate Market, (Glen P. Robbins says its 10% to 15%), any fair and rational person would be able to make linkage as between the Ita Robbins matter and this massive Unlawful Activity already determined by a Judge of the BC Supreme Court.
After the lunch recess of the court in the foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013 (H130330), GPR returns to the court and informs both Bakonyi and Ellis that he intends to register Enduring Powers of Attorney at Land Title Ita Robbins to GPR and GPR to Ita Robbins (which is done by lawyer Ross Davidson). Robert Ellis (this exists in affidavit evidence) asks if this advice was obtained from GPR’s nephew RD, a well known constitutional lawyer and litigator. GPR did not receive this advice from RD but does not respond to Ellis, knowing that he has thus taken “the bait”.
The Fraudulent Order Made After Application May 28, 2013 H130330
It should be noted that following the May 9, 2013 order nisi, GPR attended the court and obtained a court summary relating to the hearing. It reflects that no one showed up in response to the petition for foreclosure affirming the fact that the denial of right of audience did not occur as a substantive order.
Yet on May 28, 2013 Bakonyi for CMIC and Ellis for BMO jointly endorsed then filed an Order After Application relating to the right of audience matter. The applicants believe that the joint filing is in fact a breach of the Criminal Code fraud on Ita Robbins (and) BC Court Services as well. Given the reality that no application (affidavits, {it is quite intense, not to say expensive}) was ever filed on the subject of the right of audience under H130330 it would be impossible for an Order Made After Application to occur. This is clear and unmistakable Unlawful Activity.
That the BC Court Services registry would accept an Order of a clearly fraudulently nature, knowing as it ought to, with a quick glance at the computer grid of filings on the action H130330, that no Application was ever filed in the first instance, no affidavits, no response, no case law binders (that take up space in a file) is itself an indirect Unlawful Activity under the provisions of the Civil Forfeiture Act. Had BC Court Services operating under the administration of the BC Attorney General’s Office rejected the Order Made After Application for filing as it should have, this case would not have become the litigative mess it has. Wilful blindness is not a defence under the law.
Next, following the draft order of the fraudulent Order Made After Application, Judge Fenlon (now BC Court of Appeal) placed her judicial signature on the Order knowing (“or ought to have known”) she had already previously made a preliminary order on the subject of right of audience. Remember the orders that occur on the tape of the proceeding are the actual legal orders. Fenlon J. made two orders on the matter of right of audience. Her first order from original hearing based on a fraud on the court and then the fraudulent one of the Order Made After Application.
Our application asserts that Fenlon J. in combination with her reluctance to properly exercise her duties at the May 9, 2013 foreclosure hearing pursuant to theJudges Act, providing a preliminary order on the matter of right of audience without any effort to discover the facts of the matter, and then signing a second order on the same subject as a substantive order knew or ought to know that she was participating in Unlawful Activity given the Act is enacted in 2005 while the BC Liberal Government is in office.
Much of culpability in any type of law particularly criminal law involves an assessment of intent. If Fenlon J. was intent on employing the concept of plausible deniability when she permits herself to be deceived by Bakonyi and Ellis at foreclosure hearing (she states on the Transcript that she had to come over from another hearing), she was nevertheless in breach of the Judges Act involving at least three of the four subsections required to make Inquiry of her.
Later signing the easily identified Order Made After Application stretches the ability of any reasonable person to find Fenlon J.’s actions proper and unbiased. Fenlon J. indirectly participated in an Unlawful Activity as the provisions of both the Unlawful Activity, the Judges Act, and the circumstances collide.
In assessing Intent the law demands that any benefit derived connected to the action is evident of Intent. What benefit did Law Society members Bakonyi and Ellis expect to receive through the fraudulent Order Made After Application?
What benefit did Fenlon J. receive by permitting testimony at foreclosure hearing she had to know was suspicious, particularly given that the evidence adduced for preliminary order, the Reasons for Judgment of Grauer J. under S111171 - the only submission to the court beyond the petition and affidavit and responses to petition and affidavit, would have refuted the lies Bakonyi and Ellis told her at hearing? As cited in the legal binder it's very clear on a balance of probabilities.
Moreover, the transcript reveals Fenlon J was unfamiliar with the offending section of the LPA cited as supporting evidence to the Reasons for Judgement provided to the court and did not also know that the subsection contained in Grauer’s order had been changed by an act of the Legislature on the basis of its irregularities and poorly written legislation.
Why did Fenlon J. then sign a second order related to the right of audience matters and Glen Robbins? The registry must have submitted (pursuant to the BC Civil Rules), a draft of Order Made After Application filed by Bakonyi and Ellis along with the file (H130330) up to Fenlon J.’s Office. The file would have contained the Court Summary from foreclosure hearing and exposed the double order Unlawful Activity.
We believe Fenlon J. had to know the Order Made After Application was a fraud on the respondents Ita Robbins et al, as well as a fraud on the Court. On this assessment the applicants assert that they believe Fenlon J. was also directly involved in the Unlawful Activity of the Subject Property.
The Conduct of Sale
As the applicants have noted, Ellis and Bakonyi were made aware that Enduring Powers of Attorney were going to be filed at the Land Title Office in New Westminster and in September 2013 after first being retained by Ita and Glen Robbins Law Society Lawyer Ross Davidson did precisely that.
Bakonyi and Ellis were well aware that the Conduct of Sale application jointly filed by them, (the next stage in the foreclosure process at the end of the redemption period), would give opportunity to the main respondents Ita Robbins et al another opportunity to expose the fraudulent deceptive and Unlawful loan by PCFS, the fraudulent Unlawful mortgage registration at Land Title Office New Westminster of a mortgage with fraudulent interest rates (CMIC) Sooner or later they were going to be found out, so they intentionally planned their next step in Unlawful Activity.
When Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis filed the Conduct of Sale Application for hearing the first week of December 2013 both he and Ellis had already served with the Enduring Powers of Attorney. Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society had also been served with these documents. (More about Kleisinger’s Unlawful Activity in concert with former law partner CJ Chris Hinkson later) (also see facts and evidence adduced in binders).
At the hearing of the application for conduct of sale heard by Master Tokarek (a Provincial employee) Bakonyi and Ellis used the fraudulent Order Made After Application signed by Fenlon J. to block GPR from an audience with Tokarek. Tokarek interpreted this order to mean that at no time could GPR speak based exclusively on the fraudulent Order Made After Application.
Ita Robbins appealed this decision of the Master of the Court. The BC Supreme Court remains the court of jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Master of the Court. Precisely what benefit would accrue to Bakonyi and Ellis and their respective clients when they initiated the Unlawful Activity on the Courts and most particularly the Unlawful Activity of the Order Made After Application?
The benefit occurred to CMIC and BMO in that the Unlawful Activity kept their lies at foreclosure hearing from being discovered. More central to the rise of benefit (Intent) was the burying of the evidence of the Unlawful Activity on the part of the PCFS 98.7% APR loan and money laundering through the sister company CMIC.
Keep in mind also the fact that had the mortgage have been declared a fraud at hearing, and the loan from PCFS would have been certainly been declared a criminal or unconscionable contract with likely loss of several hundred thousand dollars to the petitioner plus a major hit to the reputation of both companies and its proprietors. The Unlawful Activity was undertaken to ensure that Ita Robbins did not have her day in court, so the perpetrators kept the monies and their secret(s) of fraud on her and other respondents, her husband GPR and the Courts.
The Vacant Possession Unlawful Activity.
We know as a fact that the Conduct of Sale order was obtained through intentional Unlawful Activity on the part of three lenders, two provincially incorporated mortgage brokers Peet & Cowan Financial Services & Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp, as well as BMO Bank operating under the Federal Bank Act.
The first two represented by BC Law Society member Ron Bakonyi and the third by BC Law Society member Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg law firm.
It should be noted prior to describing the brazen Unlawful Activity relating to the acquiring of a Vacant Possession order another filing event that occurred. In January 2014 Glen P. Robbins (GPR) filed an Application with the Court Registry to be added as a Party to the H130330.
Both main respondents including his wife Ita filed Responses agreeing to GPR being added. During such an application GPR would have to prove why his name should be added including evidence of fraud and such which obviously is plentiful in the case.
The Rules permit a BC Justice hearing such an application to make a variety of orders including permitting the respondents to sue under a Statement of Claim. In this instance, GPR and Ita Robbins had already filed a lawsuit 149328 at New Westminster courthouse (again, filed prior to the Petition for foreclosure).
GPR’s application was filed and then served upon Bakonyi. Bakonyi never filed a response to Application. This is important to know because the BC Civil Rules stipulate that where a respondent fails to file a response to application, the applicant is no longer required to notify the respondent (in this instance the original petitioner CMIC) of any more action taken at the Court including any dates of hearing. Bakonyi had also failed on behalf of his clients to file a defence to the Appeal of the Conduct of Sale by Ita Robbins et al within the time required.
Also in January 2014 under the weathering ROBBINS counter offensive, Ita Robbins filed an affidavit with the Court indicating that at all times and places she had commenced, defended and prosecuted her own claims. This document was filed on all parties and provided to the Law Society of BC Compliance Officer Michael “Shecky” Kleisinger. This affidavit would tend to refute the original order of Justice Grauer in October 2011 declaring that GPR had disregarding subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Profession Act (BC), a law Grauer J also eviscerated as poorly written and redundant to other subsections of the Act, subsequently amended in 2012 (a year before the original foreclosure hearing May 2013).
GPR’s application to be added as a party (standing) would be heard as a regular court application, Ita Robbins appeal of the Conduct of Sale would be heard as an appeal at the BC Supreme Court. CMIC and lawyer Bakonyi now had no control of filing or hearing dates for failing to respond. As such, GPR and Ita Robbins established hearing dates for the last week of April 2014. In tandem with these unilateral hearing dates Ita Robbins had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada relating to the original foreclosure order. That appeal was approved for hearing and communicated to Bakonyi March 18, 2014 and Ita Robbins March 20, 2014.
Bakonyi and CMIC were for all intents and purposes finished. They had been vastly outmanoeuvred by the Robbins Pro Se Team. The frauds and Unlawful Activity would be found out for certain now with GPR and Ita Robbins controlling the agenda and on the offensive and CMIC and its lawyer Bakonyi on defence (and on the ropes). Seeing the trouble they were in, CMIC ordered Bakonyi to file an application for vacant possession anyway, even though there is another application and appeal to be dealt with before the vacant possession can be heard.
With GPR’s application to be added as a party scheduled for hearing April 23, 2014 at BC Supreme Court and Ita Robbins appeal of the Conduct of Sale order (both without defence) scheduled for April 24, 2014, Bakonyi and CMIC doubled down on Unlawful Activity already committed, by first filing an application for vacant possession April 7, 2014, an application which was intentionally filed out of order of the other outstanding matters.
(Once again), the applicants assert that the BC Court Registry failed in its duty to ensure only documents which should be accepted for filing were received on foreclosure file H130330 by permitting the CMIC-Bakonyi April 7, 2014 vacant possession application for foreclosure to be filed at all. With an application and appeal ahead of it, most particularly (in context) the appeal of the Conduct of Sale, the registry new better and (once again) indirectly enmeshed the BC Government in Unlawful Activity.
So, at or about March 23rd 2014 shortly after being served by the Supreme Court of Canada with notice that a File has been opened concerning with the foreclosure hearing of May 2013 and confronting an application by GPR which he has failed to respond to and has lost effective standing in, in conjunction with an appeal he has failed to respond to and has lost effective standing in, Ron Bakonyi on behalf of his client CMIC (PCFS) successfully files an application for vacant possession to be heard April 7, 2014. He and his clients are desperate.
GPR and Ita Robbins (“IR”) and respondent her mother “FM” file Application responses to the vacant possession application pursuant to the BC Civil Rules for so doing. They seek orders from the Court adjourning the application until the other 2 matters in Court docket set for April 23rd, and April 24th, 2014, as well as an order for a Stay of Proceedings acknowledged in Court Transcript (and noted in Legal Binders provided) with evidence of all of the Unlawful Activity filed under Affidavit.
It is important to note here that within these submissions of GPR, IR & FM is the Supreme Court of Canada letter notifying us that a File had been opened with respect to the foreclosure order. However, Ita Robbins was the only respondent to file the Supreme Court of Canada order. Her name is not included in the schedule for the April 7, 2014 posted in the area where Supreme Court Chambers and Trial hearings for the day are posted. Only her mother FM attended the hearing before Justice Kloegman.
This is the only full hearing that either Ita Robbins or FM attend where a reasonably fair hearing is held. The Legal Binders provided include important testimony from the Transcript. The court tape, court clerk notes, and transcript make it crystal clear that a Stay of Execution is ordered by Kloegman J. from April 7, 2014 until April 30, 2014, with adjournment of the April 7, 2020 application with direction from Judge Kloegman that GPR was to have custody of establishing a trial date when new ones were issued commencing the 1st of May 2014 as established by policy of Trial Scheduling for Smithe Street BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal.
Requisitions were filed in the Court by Glen Robbins and Ita Robbins & FM for April 19, 2014 adjourning both the April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014 Hearing Dates.
On April 23, 2014 Ron Bakonyi attended to the BC Supreme Court located @ 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC and obtained a dismissal of the GPR’s application to be added as a party before Justice Barry Davies (who has been served with both Legal Binders August 7, 2020) and during a period of ordered Stay of Execution.
This action as against Glen Robbins is without any doubt, reinforced by his actions preceding this, EVIDENCE of (gross) Unlawful Activity in respect of property as provided for by the Civil Forfeiture Act (BC) and pursuant to Justice Grauer’s Reasons of October 3, 2011 declaring that Glen Robbins had “an interest in the property”.
The BC Civil Forfeiture Act attracts claim for direct and indirect Interests.
On April 24, 2014 Ron Bakonyi attended to the BC Supreme Court 800 Smithe Street and obtained a dismissal of Ita Robbins and FM’s appeal of the Conduct of Sale order of December 2013 itself obtained through actions of Unlawful Activity before Justice Nathan Smith (who has been served with both Legal Binders August 7, 2020) and during a period of ordered Stay of Execution. Immediately thereafter, Judge Smith also provided Ron Bakonyi (CMIC) with an order for vacant possession of the Subject Property.
These two actions as against Ita Robbins and another are without any doubt, reinforced by his actions preceding this, EVIDENCE of (gross) DIRECT Unlawful Activity in respect of property as provided for by the Civil Forfeiture Act (BC).
At or about April 25, 2014 during the process of document filing at the Supreme Court of Canada (Docket 35772) relating to the appeal of the order nisi based upon that Unlawful Activity, Ron Bakonyi failed to inform the court that a Stay of Execution order had been made April 7, 2014 which pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada rules at the time, demanded that the Vancouver Stay of Execution be filed with the Supreme Court of Canada.
These actions are EVIDENCE of Unlawful Activity occurring at the Supreme Court of Canada. This is EVIDENCE of cross jurisdictional Unlawful Activity under the Province of Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, 2001, S.O. C.28. (as well as Federal law as well).
The Applicants will now tie the Unlawful Activities of Law Society of BC Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger and his former law partner Chris Hinkson now Chief Justice Chris Hinkson to the previous Unlawful Activities already established in this Brief and in the Legal Bind submissions involving greater evidence detail.
Begin Vol 3 with "Background Michael Kleisinger".

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2021