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 3) Subject Honeysuckle Lane
Bad guys: Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan, BMO Bank, Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, Law Society BC, BC Attorney General, RCMP   Jan 03, 2021

Commentary
from Volume 2 ending: 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.
continued
Background Michael Kleisinger Law Society ‘Compliance Officer’
In September 2011 when Glen Robbins appeared before Justice Grauer at BC Supreme Court in Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins docket S111171, the Law Society was represented by Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau law office. Her second chair on the case is Michael Kleisinger.
Through two BC Courts of Appeal of Grauer’s decision Kleisinger represents the Law Society of BC solo. At no time during either hearing does Kleisinger inform Glen Robbins or the 4 Judges of that Court that the subject matter of appeal the Reasons and more specifically the order of Grauer J pursuant to subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act, that 15 (5) has been amended by the BC Legislature (May 2012).
Later, GPR would appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of Costs only seeking Double Costs. Had he been informed that subsection 15 (5) was forced by the Grauer J Reasons criticizing the clumsy drafting of subsection 15 (5) (which later caused the Unlawful Activity at foreclosure hearing in H130330 with Ita Robbins), Glen Robbins would have amended his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. (If necessary, Glen Robbins will seek an order for an extension of time to file just such an amended order).
The Applicants submit that this indirect Unlawful Activity from Kleisinger in his capacity as Compliance Office of the Law Society against Glen Robbins is the genesis of the direct Unlawful Activity involving Kleisinger and Chief Justice Chris Hinkson operating jointly and with knowledge and Intent of producing Unlawful Activity from their Offices of appointed privilege.
Vexatious Litigant (Procedure) Order: the Unlawful Activity of Michael Kleisinger & Chris Hinkson
In the first week of January 2013 (as referenced) Ita Robbins Swears an Affidavit asserting that at all times and all places she was the litigant under the LPA subsection 15(5) precipitating Robbins v BMO case (see Robert Ellis too) ‘commencing, prosecuting or defending’. If she is the party of standing and has admitted to instigating the 15 (5), then Glen Robbins cannot be that person. This affidavit is served upon Michael Kleisinger at Law Society as well as Elizabeth Lyall at Fasken Martineau, which Elizabeth Lyall acknowledges as received. Ron Bakonyi and his clients are also served.
Michael Kleisinger produces Evidence of his Intention to commit Unlawful Activity in this letter of January 6, 2014 under Reference: Unauthorized Practice of Law. This letter is important to understand the ill Intent of Kleisinger as well as Hinkson (CJ). Here is one excerpt to point.
“We understand that you have drafted and filed additional pleadings and an affidavit in Court of Appeal Action No. CA 40954, despite our various warnings that the Law Society considers your participation in that matter to be contrary to the order of Mr. Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011…. Please be advised that if you continue down this course, the Law Society will bring contempt proceedings against you which brings with it very serious sanctions.”
The whole focus of the Grauer J. order was about Glen Robbins signing a Notice of Claim document in the Ita Robbins v BMO matter. Who drafts documents for whom is irrelevant to the authority of the legislation. It is an empty threat by Kleisinger. More importantly to note here is that the threat of contempt of the Grauer J Reasons under BCSC S111171 involves the subject matter of the Legal Professions Act.
Glen Robbins ignores Kleisingers threat. GPR understands that Kleisinger is rewriting Grauer’s Reasons into a new phony narrative, or alternatively picking and choosing inapplicable elements of those Reasons. GPR knows he has Law Society members including Bakonyi, Ellis and Kleisinger on the ropes (the common thread between the group is the ethnocentric pedigree of exaggeration and inflated interest rates).
In February 2014, instead of following through on his empty contempt threat, Kleisinger initiated an interlocutory application under S111171 for vexatious litigant (procedure) orders against Glen Robbins. No person at the Law Society of BC has ever accused Glen P. Robbins of being a vexatious litigant. To be a vexatious litigant a person must sue the same entity over the same subject matter despite the matter already having been heard.
There is no proof anywhere that Glen P. Robbins at any time that Glen P. Robbins has ever engaged in such activity. Glen P. Robbins had written to Kleisinger to inform him that he was intending to sue The Law Society of BC for promoting and promulgating false narratives regarding the Grauer J. order.
The vexatious procedure provisions are found under the BC Supreme Court Act and not the Legal Profession Act. It is entirely a different subject matter and as such S111171 cannot be used for the filing, notwithstanding the fact that File No.: S111171 had already been concluded and closed at the Supreme Court of Canada anyhow.
Michael Kleisinger knew he was initiating a miscarriage of justice when he filed the interlocutory application under S111171, a concluded file and failed to present his next ambush vexatious case under a new Petition as he must do. His actions were tantamount to a dead person voting in Elections.
On the other side of Michael Kleisinger’s filing fraud at Trial Scheduling is former law partner at Harper Grey law firm Chris Hinkson (CJ).
This interlocutory application, instead of being filed with Civil Filings Desk as was normal (or originating such as a Petition, was instead “laundered” through a special court filing project known as Chambers Assize Project. Trial Scheduling (where the Justices are located, {just sayin’} was put in place in order to accommodate these Chambers Assize Applications.
(As the apparent fable goes), there was a shortage of justices in BC Courts. (It is not without irony that the main complainer of a shortage of BC Justices would be (CJ) Chris Hinkson), (who the Applicants assert participated indirectly with the Unlawful Activity of Michael Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC as against Ita Robbins, (H130330), but directly against Glen P. Robbins (S1111171) - - and (CJ) Hinkson and Law Society cohorts were screaming how desperate they were. At least at foreclosure Fenlon J. (May 9, 2013) did say she was pulled off another matter, as did Koenigsberg (April 7, 2014).
Then Michael Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC pulled this court fraud on Glen P. Robbins (Unlawful Activity) all the while earning over half a Billion dollars (net) per year from ICBC Personal Injury alone. (There has to be something very wrong in ICBC’s history moving from $15,000 to $35,000 average personal injury settlement - over a decade). (This and other information available on ICBC website to Wit: one can readily see that prior to the BC NDP coming to power settlements were being made far later along the Period much closer to the 2 year Time Limitation period when, on balance of probabilities most settlements should be occurring in the first 6 months.
The point here for factual context is the argument is easily made that through this complaint regarding shortage of justices, the BC Courts are clogged with ICBC applications notwithstanding the small percentage that ever goes to trial.
When we bear witness to the actions of Michael Kleisinger, and (CJ) Hinkson. Depraved indifference of the rights of parties to the same force and effect of BC Civil Rules of Procedure. Glen P. Robbins isn’t worried about beating any lawyer in court in a fair hearing. It's the time to prepare, when he and his wife were battling on a number of other court fronts not of our own making. The Law Society of BC and lenders were ganging up on the Robbins family. It's just not right. The law is a sword and Kleisinger and Hinkson were abusing the law, the courts, its Rules and procedures to acquire benefit for themselves at the expense of Glen P. Robbins (Ita Robbins) simply because GPR in a straight legal fight was virtually unbeatable.
At any rate, Kleisinger files his Application under a court file to a registry unaccustomed to accepting applications of this magnitude. (Under the Rules Trial Scheduling only accepts applications of over two hours). But as I say the Law Society of BC required a Petition.
A new Petition would be ineligible for the Chambers Assize Project as it would have to be filed at Civil Registry and not Trial Scheduling. Court Registry, even under the smile and file method of doing your job, could not accept a new Petition under a File Number S111171 used in another matter (Law Society of BC - Justice Grauer). The crassness of this Unlawful Activity among persons supposed to police the Rules of Court for all lawyers (including pro se lawyers), smells of pure entitlement, no respect for rules regulations boundaries, other people's property.
This Kleisinger Hinkson legal heist gets worse yet. As Kleisinger pursues the LSBC fraud on Glen Robbins, and his phony Chambers Assize interlocutory application slithers through Trial Scheduling - it emerges out the other side as a Petition. Almost like magic. (CJ) Hinkson calls it a Petition. Kleisinger then refers to it as a Petition in the subsequent paper work.
Glen P. Robbins doesn’t call it a Petition. In his fact in his Response to Application (Interlocutory) he writes all over the top of front page of that and his own Application warnings of the miscarriage of justice about to occur.
*In fact, to this point Michael Kleisinger writes this at January 24, 2014 relating to the vexatious litigant application/petition (GPR does not actually become aware of this until the 1st week of March 2014):
“We enclose for service upon you the following filed documents: 1) Notice of Application dated January 24, 2014; 2) Affidavit #4 of Colette Savage made January 23, 2014…”Under the Rules of Court, you are required to service us with your materials no later than eight business days after you have been served with out application.”
Clearly, Kleisinger is calling this an Interlocutory Application (the eight days is for application while Petition is more like 3 weeks) and not an originating Petition application. Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC are playing games with the language (both are technically applications).
The vexatious litigant subject matter comes under section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, C. 443. The original matter between the Law Society of BC and Glen P. Robbins before Grauer J. in September 2011 (Judgment October 3, 2011) relates to subsection 15 (4) & 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act. The Grauer J. matter was concluded at the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2013.
The miscarriage of justice in pursuing the vexatious litigant (procedure) order against Glen P. Robbins is that it should have been commenced through an originating petition and not a notice of application (interlocutory).
Had the Petition been filed and served as it should have been, then based on service date Glen P. Robbins would have had until the end of March 2014 to file a response to the petition. Hearing Dates (monitored daily by GPR) at Vancouver Law Courts would not have been available until a few months later. I would note that counsel, professional or pro se must consult with one another on hearing dates.
On the Transcript Record Hinkson (CJ) asks Kleisinger how a person like Glen P. Robbins who only defends people could meet the standard of vexatious procedure. On the Record Hinkson says in reserve judgment of the rushed hearing that it will take some time to get to judgment. The Manager of Trial Scheduling Sue Smolen informs GPR the next day that this is usually 30-90 days given how backed up and busy the Judges are.
Chris Hinkson (CJ) has used his appointed high Office to produce an Unlawful Activity against Glen P. Robbins, as has Michael Kleisinger. The State is responsible for both of these tramps.
The Kleisinger Hinkson Court fraud (Unlawful Activity) is designed to protect Bakonyi Ellis and moneylenders in Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage & Peet & Cowan Financial
Despite having no ground nor any evidence upon which to declare Glen Robbins or his activities in the Court vexatious, Chris Hinkson abuses his Office as Chief Justice and makes declaration on April 10, 2014 that Glen Robbins is a vexatious litigant (procedure). GPR calls it a criminal defamation. Keep in mind that Glen P. Robbins, Ita Robbins & “FM” obtained injunctive relief April 7, 2014 from Justice Kloegman (nee Satanove) and Stay of Execution placing GPR et al in control of establishing Trial Date for hearing (1) GPR’s application to be added as party; (2) Ita Robbins et al appeal of Conduct of Sale; (3) Bakonyi CMIC’s vacant possession application (if necessary).
This is important information to know in context of the miscarriage of justice against GPR and more particularly Ita Robbins as this fraudulently obtained vexatious litigant order is used by Bakonyi and Cambridge Mortgage during the Order of Stay of Execution under H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins at Supreme Court of Canada (35772). The fraudulent court filing under S111171 Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins (SCC 35302) is thus inextricably tied to the fraudulent court filings of H130330 and occurs while H130330 is frozen under Stay of Execution order (April 7-30, 2014).
These fraudulent Unlawful Activities from H130330 & S111171 are inextricably tied to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC 35772 & 35302).
We know already that LSBC member lawyer Ron Bakonyi and client CMIC, as well as Robert Ellis and BMO Bank have committed clear unmistakable Unlawful Activities already. Time is running out for them.
We know already that Bakonyi CMIC committed these acts at BC Court before 2 Federally appointed justices April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014.
On April 25, 2014 in response to Ita Robbins and FM’s application to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the original foreclosure hearing and subsequent orders including an Unlawful Activity order filed with the courts, Bakonyi and CMIC use the vexatious litigant order produced from Unlawful Activity in their response filings to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We know for a fact (it's on the Court Docket) Province of Ontario Public Servant, Supreme Court of Canada Registrar Roger Bilodeau takes the vexatious procedure order against Glen P. Robbins under 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage, and provides it to then Judge Richard Wagner (before he became Chief Justice of that Court), who issues an order barring any further court filings based on the evidence against Glen P. Robbins, who is not a party under 35772.
(The plot and the depth of the miscarriage of justice at all levels of Supreme Court ‘thickens’).
This makes it impossible for Ita Robbins and FM who have nothing to do with Glen P. Robbins’ issues with the Law Society of BC to file evidence of the fraud of orders obtained by Bakonyi during a Stay of Execution order, one which he was responsible to file and to provide to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Total fraud across two provincial jurisdictions (British Columbia and Ontario) and federal jurisdiction.
The Applicant’s assert that these events link the Unlawful Activity from the British Columbia Supreme Courts to the Supreme Court of Canada (H130330 - 35772 Ita Robbins et al v Cambridge). The Applicants assert that both Courts and all Governments, BC, Ontario and Canada are now fully aware of these Unlawful Activities. The Applicants assert that all relevant Judges from the BC Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of Canada including Gordon Brown J are now fully aware of these Unlawful Activities.
The Applicant’s assert that both Governments including the Prime Minister and Privy Council Office are aware of the Contempt by Judges and the Courts of other Judges Orders including Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution and other orders April 7, 2014 and Contempt of Grauer J.’s Reasons by Fenlon J. and assert that another former Chief Justice of Nova Scotia has been made aware of these Unlawful Activities involving fellow justices but have failed to make proper inquiry.
The Applicants assert that the NDP Attorney General can call for an Inquiry into Judges conduct under the Judges Act and provide compensation to Ita Robbins et al (Glen Robbins) from the Civil Forfeiture account. In the history of Canada there has never been an NDP Prime Minister. Thus no justice past or present has ever been appointed to any position of Supreme Court Justice by an Elected New Democrat.
The Manifestation of Unlawful Activity - the ‘Theft’ of Subject Property @ 1355 Honeysuckle Lane.
Prior to July 14, 2014, the date Law Societies Bakonyi and is client Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (“CMIC”) exercised a Writ of Execution based upon a Vacant Possession Order obtained through court fraud and Unlawful Activity during a Stay of Execution a couple of other noteworthy events occurred.
First, Glen P. Robbins filed an appeal of the April 23, 2014 Davies J. order dismissing his application to be added as party obtained through Bakonyi Cambridge fraud and contempt of court order (stay of execution) to the BC Court of Appeal. Second, Ita Robbins et al filed an appeal of the vacant possession order obtained through Bakonyi Cambridge fraud and contempt of court order (stay of execution) to the BC Court of Appeal.
In June 2014 one month prior to the Unlawful Activity taking of the Subject Property, Bakonyi Cambridge had filed a response to GPR’s Appeal at BC Court of Appeal seeking to have the appeal struck. The application was heard before Paul Willcock, a Judge of that Court. The application was dismissed. During the application the Willcock J asked GPR why an appeal to the Conduct of Sale order wasn’t undertaken.
The answer is that the Conduct of Sale dismissal order obtained through fraud & contempt of court was secured from BC Judge Nathan Smith was a Court of Appeal. This makes this order available for overturn directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Rules of that Court stipulating that an application can be made to that Court from any order from the BC Court of Appeal.
This makes the appeal of the Conduct of Saler dismissal order still available to the Supreme Court of Canada with leave and application for extension of time to file the appeal. (A real opportunity for the SCC to figure out which side its one, the Rule of Law and the Canadian Public Interest, or the rule of crooked lawyers).
Bakonyi and Cambridge knew in June 2014 they were done for certain. Their concerns about the appeal processes that could occur referred to Kloegman during the April 7, 2014 application which resulted in the Stay of Execution order made that date were realized. This is important as it once again provides insight into the length and breadth of the fraud and contempt of authority of Judicial orders that Bakonyi and Cambridge were willing to Intentionally undertake to achieve their nefarious means.
On July 14, 2014 Bailiffs and RCMP attended the Subject Property at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane. The RCMP had no business attending that day, there were NO orders obtained from the court permitting their attendance. To underscore this point the applicants refer to a recent decision by Davies J. of BC Supreme Court (the same judge who granted the dismissal of GPR’s application to be added as party on April 23, 2014 during the Stay of Execution period (ending April 30, 2014), where the petitioner seeking sale of an ‘Asian woman’s’ property was forced after numerous efforts to have this Asian woman comply with court orders, to apply to the court for an order to permit the RCMP to attend.
At the door of the Subject Property both the private Bailiff firm and RCMP were informed that there were no valid orders for taking the property and to contact their managers, supervisors to seek legal advice before matters escalated. The two RCMP refused to do so, while the Bailiffs called Bakonyi Cambridge who had sent them there in the first place.
Prior to the Bailiffs calling crooked Bakonyi Cambridge GPR telephone his nephew Ryan Dalziel a Constitutional lawyer and litigator of some repute (who had clerked before Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella). Instead of getting Ryan directly GPR ended up speaking with his father CJD who said he would contact Ryan and call GPR back directly).
When CJD called GPR back, he informed GPR that Ryan’s advice through him as an intermediary was that Bailiffs and RCMP required valid orders from the Court.
The RCMP possessed no valid order to have attended and were engaged in Unlawful Activity by attending to the Subject Property ultimately threatening detention and arrest of Glen P. Robbins, his wife and daughters (the Jane Doe respondents), another Unlawful Activity. The RCMP Officers were asked for these orders but ignored the request.
The Bailiffs acting for Bakonyi instead of getting legal advice or taking the time to investigate the issues put to them called Bakonyi. Bakonyi then spoke to GPR. When confronted with the Unlawful Activity occurring Bakonyi indicated he would call off the Bailiffs and the RCMP if Ita Robbins would email him her consent to conduct of sale.
When Glen Robbins refused Bakonyi Cambridge’s ‘offer’ to withdraw Bailiffs and police, Bakonyi instructed the Bailiffs to enforce the writ of possession (vacant possession) order obtained through Unlawful Activity. Thereafter the Bailiffs threatened GPR with detention by the RCMP. When GPR informed both the Bailiffs and RCMP of Bakonyi’s offer relating to the conduct of sale ‘offer’ and reiterated they were engaged in Unlawful Activity, the RCMP detained Glen P. Robbins and reiterated their threat to detain his wife and children.
Ontario Civil Remedies Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, C.28
“Property eligible for administrative forfeiture” “Grounds to seek administrative forfeiture”
1.2 (2) The Attorney General may commence an administrative forfeiture proceeding against any property if he or she has reason to believe that the property is proceeds of unlawful property or an instrument of unlawful Activity, 2020 c.11, Sched. 3, s.1 (1).
The Applicants would note for the AG (Director’s) edification that the original Unlawful Activity of original Sale of property of Subject Property 1355 Honeysuckle Lane was made to a buyer who we believe is indirectly or directly involved with the Unlawful Activity who received his financing from a company in the Province of Ontario and who purchased the Subject Property for estimated $700,000 with no money down and a mortgage estimated at $4,300 per month. This person then sold the property a year or so later for estimated $1,250,000 about the current BC Assessment value.
There is no accounting on the File H130330 which was last audited by Glen Robbins in 2019.
House Insurance/Mandated Mediation:
Glen Robbins and Ita Robbins contacted Wawanesa Insurance seeking payout of Insurance Claim based on the theft of contents and of the House itself. The total coverage in 2014 was for estimated $950,000 divided two thirds for house structure and one third for contents. This claim was sent to Wawanesa and to the Insurance Agents at McDonald Gill Insurance on Westwood Plateau, who ignored the letters. The insurance premium was for $170 per month including earthquake insurance. In the Summer of 2015 an offer was made on a without prejudice basis to the Government of British Columbia to settle with Ita Robbins et al for $900,000. Keep in mind also that Bakonyi and Cambridge were compelled in the fall of 2014 through service of Mediation Rules under BCSC 149328 civil claim, but refused to participate.
The Appeal of the Vacant Possession Order obtained through Contempt of Court Order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014 - used to obtain fraudulent Writ of Possession.
So, Glen P. Robbins appeals the contemptuous dismissal of his application to be added as party (April 23, 2014), while Ita Robbins et al appeals the vacant possession order. Both orders are appealed to the BC Court of Appeal.
The appeal of Glen P. Robbins' application to be added as a party and Bakoni Cambridge’s failure to have Paul Willcock dismiss the appeal has been dealt with. The vacant possession appeal is set to be heard September 2014 including order for stay of proceedings. Bakonyi Cambridge took action on the Unlawful Activity of taking possession of the Subject Property on July 14, 2014 following Bakonyi Cambridge’s first failure of GPR’s application and prior to the hearing of the Appeal.
Naturally the fraudulent taking of the property July 14, 2014 turns the Robbins family world upside down, and it would be understood if they are unable to put their case together for the appeal of the vacant possession order September, 2014. It would also be understandable that the Robbins family (GPR, Ita Robbins et al including 2 Jane Doe (daughters) have absolutely no confidence in achieving any justice in the Courts. No person in their right reasonable mind would doubt this was real, awful and intentional on the part of the Courts.
But Bakonyi Cambridge helped them on the point of appeal of the vacant possession order no matter. He/they do not file reply documents to the BC Court of Appeal anywhere near the time for so doing and never served the documents upon Ita Robbins. Instead they serve them on the Subject Property long since occupied by other parties.
The issue of service is noted well in orders provided by the BC Court of Appeal Justice (a woman) whose name escapes the writer. The justice relies on the affidavit of the process server that documents were served (at all) and makes an order dismissing the appeal of the fraudulent vacant possession order. Ita Robbins et al did not attend the application hearing in September, rightly presuming no confidence in the court.
Neither Ita Robbins nor Glen P. Robbins made further appeals to a BC Court of Appeal panel as was available to them because of no confidence in the BC Courts to fairly hear them.
Despite the opportunities to do so, at no time does Ron Bakonyi/Cambridge file the stay of execution order of April 7, 2014 as he was lawfully obliged to do. At no time does Ron Bakonyi/Cambridge inform the BC Court of Appeal despite opportunities to do so of his non filing of the stay of execution order to the BC Supreme Court or to the Supreme Court of Canada (35772) as he was lawfully obliged to do so.
Both Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins appeals to the BC Court of Appeal are exhausted at that level of Superior Court (to the extent that the Rules matter anyhow).
As at September 2014 Ita and Glen Robbins have the following appeals that can be made to the Supreme Court of Canada. Appeal of Order Nisi (35772) Foreclosure (dismissal obtained through contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc). Dismissal of order barring Glen P. Robbins a right of audience before Fenlon J. (December 9, 2013) in order to seek an adjournment on the basis that no Notice of Hearing was ever served upon Ita Robbins et al.
Dismissal of Order Made After Application (BC Court of Appeal) (order obtained through contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc.).
Dismissal of Conduct of Sale order made December 2013 (obtained through contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc.) Dismissal of order dismissing Glen P. Robbins application to be added as a party (April 23, 2014) during a stay of execution order made April 7, 2014 (Kloegman J.) and valid until April 30, 2014 (Davies J., contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc.)
Dismissal of court order at BC Court of Appeal (BC Supreme Court) dismissing Ita Robbins et al’s appeal of conduct of sale order (Nathan Smith J.) made April 24, 2014 during a stay of execution order made April 7, 2014 and valid until April 30, 2014 (contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc.).
Dismissal of vacant possession order (writ of possession) obtained April 24, 2014 during a stay of execution order made April 7, 2014 and valid until April 30, 2014 (contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc.). Dismissal of dismissal of appeal of vacant possession order made September 2014 (BC Court of Appeal) on basis of breach of BC Court of Appeal Rules, and contempt of court, fraud, breach of trust etc.).
Dismissal of Supreme Court of Canada orders (1) dismissing Ita Robbins et al’s appeal of order nisi (foreclosure), (2) dismissing the dismissal of Ita Robbins et al’s application for stay of execution (SCC 35772) pursuant to the order made by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014 valid to April 30, 2014 and as yet unfiled at BC Supreme Court (BC Court of Appeal) or at Supreme Court of Canada which is mandated by virtue of Supreme Court of Canada Rules governing stays of execution order of Superior Provincial Court which must be provided to the Supreme Court of Canada where there is an application for appeal of subject matter orders arising from the lower court.
Dismissal of the orders of Judge/Registrar Roger Bilodeau and Chief Justice Richard Wagner relating to orders of vexatious procedure made @ (SCC 35772), based on application of Bakonyi/Cambridge, which application was supported by vexatious procedure (litigant order) made by Chief Justice Chris Hinkson and obtained through the actions of Law Society of BC Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger in conjunction with Chief Justice Hinkson (both former law partners) whose Unlawful Actions (Activity) produced the original vexatious litigant (procedure) order, which order, when conjoined with orders made between and among the Supreme Court of Canada’s Roger Bilodeau (Province of Ontario Public Servant, Powers of a Judge under SCC Rules) connect both Superior levels of BC Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada in contempt of court (their own) Rules, Fraud, Breach of Trust, and other high crimes).
(Will an application to the United Nations (Justice) be necessary on the basis the entire Canadian Court system from BC Supreme Court to BC Court of Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada is inextricably connected to clearly Unlawful (Criminal) Activities? (Remember the Supreme Court of California in Google v Equustek (SCC 36602) overturned the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada).
Information in Legal Binders (Background) Jody Wilson Raybould then Federal AG
By the end of January 2015 then Federal Liberal Attorney General Jody Wilson Raybould’s constituency offices in Vancouver, (near the crime scene at 800 Smithe Street- BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal) and in Ottawa, would have or ought to have known about the court filing frauds and connected Unlawful Activity under BCSC H130330 and SCC 35772.
Glen P. Robbins Letter to Jody Wilson Raybould has been well read and is available under Google Search “Glen P. Robbins” and related link to ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) a Private Platinum Public Opinion site (and other) which has well documented all of this material.
Thousands of IP addresses across BC, Canada, United States and many other countries have ‘read’ this Letter. Everyone from Judges at BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal (through service of Legal Binders to them) are aware that former Liberal Attorney General Jody Wilson Raybould should have investigated the circumstances surrounding the Unlawful Activity. Had she done so the matter could have been corrected 5 years ago.
Prior to writing a letter to Jody Wilson Raybould, Glen P. Robbins attended the Courts with his daughter Jane Doe 1 who had business at the court herself. GPR attended to the desk at civil records securing court clerk notes of Kloegman J.'s stay of execution of order and providing these to AG Wilson Raybould.
Coming to Volume 4 (last Volume): Glen P. Robbins files Intervenor Application in Google v Equustek to expose Court Fraud in Cambridge v Robbins (H130330) and Robbins v Cambridge (SCC 35772). PLUS suggested settlement amounts & allocation of payments from Bad Guys and Unlawful Activity.

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