Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen, Ita Robbins respond to Apr 27, 2021 Letter - to D Lametti (Can AG), D. Eby (BC AG), M Farnworth (BC SG)
Vol. of 3 Volumes in Response - (this includes para 1 of pg 15 advance notes)  May 25, 2021

May 18, 2021
Glen and Ita Robbins,
Federal AG Lametti (Personal & Confidential) ℅ House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OA6, Fax: 1 613 943 6637
BC AG Eby, (Personal & Confidential) ℅ 2909 W. Broadway, Vancouver, B.C., V6K 2G6, 604 660 0862
BC Solicitor General Farnworth (Personal & Confidential) 2748 Lougheed Highway, #107A Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 3LB, 604 927 2090
From: Glen and Ita Robbins (Legal Letter pursuant to Supreme Court of Canada Rules).
This Letter is in response to the letter to Ita Robbins (“IR”) and Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”) from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti. The Minister’s letter is dated April 27, 2021 and was received by me “GPR” (“IR”), on May 1, 2021. The letter is signed by Julie Gauthier Manager Ministerial Correspondence Unit. I thank Ms. Gauthier, in her capacity as a civil servant (earning a scrumptious salary), for at least having the courage to put her name to her letter, notwithstanding the fact I don’t believe the conduct of the Ministry (the State) on account of her actions is an exercise in good faith.
As has been customary, Glen and Ita Robbins will provide these ‘notes’ to the ‘Public Jury’ at this gmail communication of mostly institutional actors and to others prior to formal submissions. A final draft will be produced and put online at Glen P. Robbins Website www.robbins sce This will be printed and faxed along with a more traditional cover letter and signatures. This printed document will then go to the printers to be bound, usually for a one to two day turnout. The final process of the response is taking the bound legal documents produced and mailing them to the Registered Mail at Canada Post (including signatures where possible). In terms of determining relevant dates, my wife and I believe that the provision of these notes to parties satisfied “awareness” or service, the bound documents the time stamp for court purposes.
The direct costs of the submittal in terms of printing, binding and submitting heads upwards of $500 pretty quickly. Glen Robbins time investment in this response is estimated at 40 hours.
The average cost of a very average lawyer in BC is $350 per hour. (ED: Think very Gump here). Glen P. Robbins books HIS time at $1,500 per hour or $60,000 (Canadian). This ‘cost’ if not a direct payment for services, is then passed on to politicos in one way or another, in keeping the Robbins Records straight. Just as new immigrants vote for the party that let them in the country, the government in power must take responsibility for the misdeeds of their predecessors. (ED: It’s claimed to responsible government (LOL)).
Glen P. Robbins has over 4,000 logs in these claims involving he, his wife and family. $6,000,000, about the same the two Indo Canadian crooks got from the BC Tax Payers after their guilty plea in the BC Rail fraud case.
The Ministry of Justice’s letter to my wife and I, is, in relation to complaints “I/We” made to the Canadian Judicial Council about (particularly) BC Justices Chief Justice Hinkson and Fenlon J. Not only is this Letter response an Escalation from the debauched effort at CJC, as a type of non performance appeal to the Federal Justice Ministry, but is, in addition, an Escalation between my wife and I, directly to the Minister, to direct that the CJC bring an Inquiry based on the provisions in the Federal Judges Act.
There is no appeal from the CJC specifically provided for under law, although one may ask the CJC, or the Minister of course, for Reconsideration. We did not ask McDonald for a Reconsideration of his decision. It was deserving only of rebuke. The Minister has authority to order either Reconsideration or an Inquiry, I would insist upon the latter, lest the Minister become responsible for McDonald In Personam.
To do anything less brings the Federal Minister In Personam (by our choice) within the scope of litigation. The Minister may have taken no oath as a lawyer but he has taken an Oath to uphold the laws of the country as a Member of Parliament, and again, as a Minister in Cabinet.
Addressing this response to the Attorney General of BC as well, will serve as Escalation in that province from the most recent effort to achieve relief from the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. Our quotes later from the April 17th, 2021 Justice Ministry Letter will clearly identify the BC Civil Forfeiture enterprise as nothing more than a scam to fund police with no evidence of intention to compensate victims with the proceeds taken from alleged Unlawful activity.
Indeed, for readers and the State ‘actors’ involved, there is more important NEWS to add about the Hinkson Complaint, and to amend the complaint to include Hinksons’ confederates in court filing fraud at BCHRT 2001, BC Judges Lyndsey Lyster and Heather McNaughton. There is no Statute of Limitations for Complaining against a Judge, including on the basis of their behaviour prior to them becoming Judges.
7 Years Later, the Kloegman J. order for Stay of Execution under BC Supreme Court File No.: H130330 has still not been filed, and Hinkson is blocking this and Ita Robbins cash in the Court Account.
This letter in response to the Minister’s April 27, 2021 letter is also intended to deal with the unfiled Stay of Execution Order Made April 7, 2014 by then Justice Kloegman, who retired on July 14, 2014 , the day of the state sanctioned home invasion at our family property 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC. It is this order that will be at the heart of any Supreme Court of Canada submissions for extraordinary orders involving “unique circumstances.”
The filing of the Stay of Execution order made April 7, 2014 under Vancouver law courts file No.: H130330 - (the) foreclosure matter is within the Federal Minister’s authority. Not filing it is not within his discretion. Constitutional credibility of the Independence of Canadian Superior Court Judges rests with this Minister who appears to be more in line with former Conservative Prime Minister’s opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada and of his appointments to the BC Bench.
If the Minister simply took the proper action to file the former BC Supreme Court Justice Kloegman’s orders for Stay of Execution, and order as well, that Glen P. Robbins have sole control of contacting the court registry at Trial Scheduling for the purpose of establishing new hearing dates, AND dismissed all of the orders obtained illegally by Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis (Cambridge Mortgage Investment), (BMO Bank of Montreal) = Breach of Criminal Code (Order Made After Application (H130330) (May 28, 2013), dismissal of the order dismissing GPR’s app to be added as party, dismissal of the Conduct of Sale Appeal dismissal, and of the 1st fraudulent Vacant Possession/Writ of Possession orders between Bakonyi and BC Justice Nathan Smith, and the second fraudulent vacant possession order between Bakonyi and Fenlon, both of these judges former Conservative PM Stephen Harper's - appointments.
And the implications are - as ‘Hollywood People’ say - ‘Breathtaking’!
The problem is that once that domino falls, the entire orgy of legal and judicial deceit, fraud, insider manipulation is discovered. Everyone involved will be the object of public loathing.
A private agreement, with non-disclosures might be the answer. You wouldn’t be hearing from me anytime soon. (ED: “Go on take the money and run” - Steve Miller).
The word Independence intended plainly means “the fact or state of being independent”. Judicial Independence is defined by the BC Provincial Court “ultimately means that judicial officers of the Court have the freedom to decide each case on its merits without interference or influence of any kind from any source including another branch of government.”
It’s more than a little stupid Mr. Minister, to simply reiterate that Judges are Independent just because the Constitution says it must be. Independence as stipulated in the Constitution is a concept, a Judge cannot be Independent simply on say so, Independence must also be demonstrated. (ED: “Stupid” means a lack of intelligence or common sense).
Further, if the stipulated Independence is NOT demonstrated by a politically appointed judge, or, alternatively, is proven to have been subverted by a Judge, as my wife and I have obviously demonstrated, then it cannot be claimed as protection by the Judge subverting it just on say so. A Judge in this position is NOT Independent.
Vexatious procedure (ED: vexatious litigant does not exist in law - made up language by lawyers) occurs when someone sues a party or parties, obtains a decision, (usually a loss), and then sues again under the same subject matter. It's a rather frivolous concept considering that the universal concept of Res Judicata would capture the second (offending) litigation, and the Judicial discretion with respect to Costs (inclusive of dollar of dollar legal fees), would tend to make the vexatious litigant (procedure) unnecessary.
(ED: “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion is the Latin term for “matter decided” and refers to either of two (legal) concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal the the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties. The doctrine of res judicata is a (legal) method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished…(but) mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments..”)
Chris Hinkson’s first words at the rushed (ED: to cover up the court filing shenanigans) hearing in an scheduling environment where a shortage of justices existed March 20, 2014, was to ask the Law Society of BC and his former law partner, LSBC partner Michael Kleisinger ‘how the court could put a vexatious litigant label on someone like GPR who only defends people’ (a characterization which would thereafter, make a vexatious litigant declaration impossible). For evidence, the Law Society of BC, which clearly wasn’t ready for trial, cited every court case GPR had ever been in since 1990. Being a pro se lawyer in 50 cases is not evidence of a vexatious procedure, the singularity presumed by no plurality of the word, meaning only one procedure need be cited (ED: Why would a party permit 2 or 3 instances of vexatious procedure to occur taking action).
Chris Hinkson eviscerated Justice Grauer’s (now @ BC Court of Appeal- Witness Protection (LOL)) Judicial Independence directly (Grauer J., Smith J, and Davies J.), by holding the hearing on the irregularly filed application in complete disregard of Grauer’s Reasons for Judgement in an action commenced by petition, thus effectively making a Nullity of Grauer J.’s Judgment and of his own through the miscarriage of allowable filing procedures. (ED: As curling and judging goes that a shot on the rocks).
Certainly, Hinkson’s misuse of his appointed Office, and collaboration with Law Society of BC Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger isn’t a demonstration of judicial competence. If the outcome were not so disastrous, these events might be good fodder for comedy. Hinkson took a full day of Trial Time (when more was actually needed) in a rush to judgment.
Let’s have a look at Hinkson’s position on the availability of court time from his whining in the press:
From the Vancouver Sun Feb 08, 2018 (Kieth Fraser) entitled: “Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson frustrated by judge shortages at BC Supreme Court.” “BC’s top trial court judge has expressed frustration at the chronic shortage of judges on the BC Supreme Court arising from delays in judicial appointments being made by the Liberal government.” “We’re down to 10 percent of the court,'' said Hinkson. “It has gone on too long. It is impacting our ability to schedule cases and long chambers hearings.”
“Hinkson said he has cut down the number of cases being booked because they/ve had to “bounce” so many cases and so many applications.”
“But I am very frustrated in having to tell the litigant that they can’t have a judge or they can’t have a (hearing) date because we’ve had to cut back so far because the court is understaffed.” “The Chief Justice said he had held off discussing the issue with the media but decided the situation had gone on too long.”
This from terrific Independent reporter Bob Mackin at February 17, 2021:
“It was a case of once bitten, twice shy.” “BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Hinkson refused on February 17, to grant Dr. Bonnie Henry and the BC NDP government an order to shut down three evangelical churches.” “For more than three months, the Fraser Valley Christians have flounted pandemic rules (sic) at public galleries.” “I am left to wonder what would be achieved by the issuance of an injunction in this case,” Hinkson wrote. “If it were granted and not adhered to, would the administration of justice yet be brought into disrepute because the BC Prosecution Service considered that it will not be in the public interest to prosecute those who refused to adhere to orders.” “To be clear, I am not condoning the petitioner’s conduct in contravention of the order that they challenged but find that the injunctive relief sought...should not be granted.”
(ED: So, a number of significantly sized churches go against BC Health orders - and Hinkson’ s okay with this, BUT when his Jewish “Hollywood” lawyers get in a bind, he stands at the ready to break or to enable being broken BC Court Rules and ignore every possible legal and ethical consideration including permitting Ita Robbins to lose her home, to cover up his and his associates criminal/Unlawful behaviour).
Hinkson, reasoned it this way for the churches “Many are finding solace and their religious views and practices..together with others who share their views and practices.”
This Hinkson’s a half wit right? The deal here is to know that politically it is Mike Farnworth Public Safety Minister (ED: includes RCMP) (who knows GPR) to respond to Hinkson. If he doesn’t politically euthanize Hinkson, then he himself gets euthanized politically by GPR and his army of writers. These are Glen P. Robbins Rules of Politics. ‘Hinkson goes’ or ‘you go’. GPR has the writers and researchers to take any politician out, should it be necessary to do so. (ED: Now that is compounding Interest).
RCMP to investigate
My wife and I, (and others), received a letter dated April 27, 2021 from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. Our Complaint had been received at or about April 13, 2021, or about two weeks later Following the filing of Complaint along with the submissions provided to the CJC. A File Number “2021-1217” has been opened to accommodate the complaint with the following important considerations advanced:
“As specified in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, a copy of your complaint has been sent to the RCMP. “An investigator will be assigned to your complaint….” “The RCMP may ask you to consider an informal resolution of your complaint.” “Additionally, the specific terms of the resolution (what the parties have agreed to) as well as the agreement of all those terms must be signified in writing.”
The NEW information provided about Hinkson must be included in the RCMP investigation now that the clock is ticking on the Complaints Commissioner’s Investigator. This Letter is considered by Glen and Ita Robbins to be additional information to the RCMP Complaints Commissioner. On this I note lastly, that an RCMP Investigator does the investigating.
The Minister’s letter (ironically, coincidentally or planned) is also sent to my wife and I, April 27, 2021. With respect to the Manager Gauthier as described below, this letter, in my opinion, as an expert in legal matters (though not a lawyer called to the Bar) is an example of more intentional bad faith by the Ministry. I respectfully submit this allegation against the Minister “personally”, based on what the Minister ought to know, and what a reasonable person armed with the facts would do with that knowledge. Here is what the Department of Justices’ website says about staff, then tell me Mr. Minister if you don’t think you are crawling behind the 8 Ball. (ED: 8 ball pool the game as the metaphor, not cocaine).
“Ministerial Correspondence staff prepare replies to approximately 95 percent of the incoming mail. The remaining 5 percent is sent to various departmentmental sectors for specific input from a policy or legal perspective.” (ED: interpreted to mean - do nothing).
On the other hand, the bad faith I accuse against the RCMP is temporarily suspended, as the opening of file number, an Investigator put on the ‘crime scene’ suggests the threat of good faith on its part. Should the RCMP Investigation tend to collude or cooperate with the other Institutions (ED: The State and Sub State actors) under pressure here, I would expect that would be easy to detect, and the bad faith suspension would be reversed to accommodate such a circumstance.
I cannot see the Public Relations value of the RCMP doing this given the problems the RCMP are having at the Cullen Commission Investigation of money laundering in British Columbia. It doesn’t look good, even the Report of ex RCMP Officer Peter German was sandpapered pretty well by lawyers. Ex Solicitor General Rich Coleman (also ex RCMP) doesn’t look good from where I sit. By getting to these lawyers quickly and settling with my wife and I, the RCMP can have it both ways. Hinkson made a few judgments in cases involving religious matters (He and Kleisinger are Masons) in Langley and the Fraser Valley, where Rich Coleman was an MLA. Do any Readers recall the 10 acres taken out of the Metro plan by Langley?)
The RCMP, Attorney General of Canada, and the Attorney General of British Columbia are all defendants in litigation in the BC Supreme Court New Westminster 149328, where my wife and I (and others) appear as plaintiffs against them. This case has been effectively stopped by more ‘hysterical orders’ produced under colour of fraud (GPR allegation) by Chris Hinkson, the Chief Justice of the lower superior court of BC, and to whom this Complaint and other information naturally relates.
Because there is so much cross jurisdictional actionable activity (B.C./Canada) involved in these cases combined, from the Federal Interest Act to the Competition Act, the Federal Court of Canada would have jurisdiction to hear any lawsuit brought by Mr. and Mrs. Robbins, should they choose to take that route. Remember, the Supreme Court of Canada remains a court of appeal and is generally not a Court that provides compensation, but there is nothing stopping it from doing so. The Federal Court of Canada has no limit to damages. ‘Not even a Billion dollars I asked?’ “No” laughed the Registrar. “Hmmm” I responded.
Why not? Former Conservative PM Stephen Harper treated former SCC Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin like the poor woman was worthless, showing nothing but Contempt for her and Canada’s top court. Beverley McLachlin was a BC Judge appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In context, look at Harper’s people - Hinkson, Fenlon - I could go on. No respect for the Supreme Court of Canada.
From CBC (Kathleen Harris, Rosemary Barton) last updated December 2017. The article is entitled “Shocked”: ‘Retired chief justice was blindsided by Stephen Harper’s public attack.’ The sub-title states: ‘Beverley McLachlin reveals behind the scenes details of battle with Conservatives.’
“Retiring Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin says public trust in a vital demcratic institution was at stake in an extraordinary battle between her and former prime minister Stephen Harper.”
“In her first public comments on the dispute, McLachlin told CBC News that Harper’s claim that she had acted inappropriately by trying to contact his office could have undermined the administration of justice in Canada.” (ED: Lady have you read my wife’s claim?) “I was worried that any such allegations could tarnish the administration of justice, could tarnish the office of chief justice, could tarnish the court, she said…’ (ED: Lady, you got no idea - oh wait maybe you do).
“McLachlin, who retire(s) (sic) Friday after 28 years at the Supreme Court, including 17 as chief justice, said she was “shocked” by Harper’s public accusation that he tried to meddle in the Conservative nomination process to pick a Quebec judge to the high court.” “McLachlin said she was in Moncton, N.B. for a speaking engagement at the time in May 2014...when she read Harper’s accusations. She says she was “astonished”.
‘I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong, and I spent a rather miserable two hours, or 2 and ½ hours, on the flight figuring out how this could have happened and what was going on,” McLachlin told CBC News.’ ‘When I got back to the office, I thought about it and I said, well, you know, I’m not going to get into a fight. Judges can't get into fights with politicians. We have to be quiet if we are accused normally.” “But I do believe the public is entitled to the facts.” (ED: As do I M’Lady).
Readers should keep in mind that Beverley McLachlin was “nominated” by a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, appointed by Governor General Jeanne Sauve, later castigated and rebuked by Conservative PM Stephen Harper and former Progressive Conservative leader - turned Conservative Attorney General Peter McKay.
Later in the submission we will address two other events, involving not only Hinkson's Unlawful vexatious litigant order, but a second order he made against Robbins, litigation without legal cause or justification and without a hearing. Glen Robbins claims Hinkson’s actions were pre meditated and undertaken to assist Bakonyi and Ellis Roadburg and their crooked clients Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp, Peet and Cowan Financial Services, as well as BMO Bank.
The Judges were given an opportunity to deal with this matter by the Complaint made to the CJC. which the Minister and Ms. Gauthier acknowledges in (their) letter. It bothers me somewhat, that the Minister’s letter presumes to NOT know that the CJC had already dismissed the Complaints many months ago. My Response to the CJC, provided under this letter to the Minister serves, I believe, as a position of appeal (though I/We were not advised of what rights were, nor is it clear in any of the information provided by the Government of Canada). Honestly, it seems like intent to jive.
A Complaint to the CJC involves administrative law standards. Things have changed significantly on that front since the 2019 Vavilov decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. More about the details of that, but at this juncture, it is sufficient to interpret the decision as saying that judicial or decision making reasoning is not just reasonable, but instead correct. My wife and I should win BIG BIG BIGGER because of it. Hinkson, Fenlon and other Stephen Harper appointments cannot run or hide.
I would amend our Complaint then to include former Justice McDonald. His ignorance of the facts, the law, and lack of application of any effort on the Complaint was we believe, an ‘insider fix’ by someone not accustomed to the Executive Director position, as he himself asserts must occur, and who at the time of our case, declares himself to be the Executive Director. He received the Complaint with a perfect view of the Vavilov decision.
The Canadian Judicial Council in light of this information must reconsider the Complaint. The Minister has to pick up the phone as this case is picking up new unsavory odors.
As the Trump 2024 freight train roars back into the US White House, I expect the insight I am providing to him along these somewhat abstract lines, will assist HIM in understanding the complete lack of cohesion or connection between and among Institutions in Canada, particularly the legal system, but also including the Federal Government and British Columbia Government. He may or may not be able to see some comparisons in his own circumstance. Anyone can see that my wife and I have made sure to put the Canadian legal and justice systems together!
Just as President Trump represents the Public Interest in the United States over the disturbing events that occurred there in the 2020 Election (and months leading up to it), Ita & Glen Robbins represent the Public Interest in Canada. The political actors like Horgan in BC, Trudeau in Ottawa and Judges and others, will have to decide whether to cover up these events for the State or instead elect to act in the Public Interest. If the Public Interest is ignored it follows that the State will later be ignored (more than it is today). Glen and Ita Robbins equals the Public Interest.
Can there be any doubt that my wife and I have exposed the lawyers, the judges and court registries to be anything but Independent or acting in the Public Interest? The Force is now in the position to do the right thing, a basic psychological concept that lawyers seem strangely detached from. Will the Force protect the State or decide to protect the Public Interest embodied by Glen and Ita Robbins? They cannot do both.
In the CJC Complaint, my wife and I made Offers to settle (Informal Resolution) on the basis that an apology from the Judge(s) (which does not constitute an admission of liability) was forthcoming, (despite my belief that both Hinkson and Fenlon were acting in contravention of the Judges Act). A simple apology. Pitiful. Arrogant. Pitiful and Arrogant.
My wife and I have exposed a weak, lazy, arrogant, elitist justice system.
Because Judges are political appointments, they will henceforth be treated as such, with no deference to their appointed positions because it is their responsibility to prove various truths including the Independence of Justices and the proper protection of the Public Interest not ours to disprove. Remember, the State must first prove that it is acting in good faith (Supreme Court of Canada). If the State cannot bear out proof of this standard of conduct of this onus upon it, the conclusion must be that the State is acting in bad faith.
(ED: On the subject of truth, keep in mind that Freedom of Expression (Canada’s free speech law), as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada has determined the criteria for consideration of free speech and expression as (1) the writer, speaker of the speech believes they are speaking the truth, and (2) the effort is considered part of self actualization to the writer OR to a 3rd party seeking to respond to that free speech. Nowhere in this criteria is there a role for the government. The legislation the Liberal Government of Canada seeks to change freedom of expression Charter Rights ought to fail for this reason. The Reader should also know this, in the United States - so called hate speech is in FACT considered free speech. If the speech or expression isn’t criminal it's lawful).
BC’s Attorney General David Eby, former head of BC’s Civil Liberties (ED: Imagine??) is also immersed in bad faith from our recent Civil Forfeiture filings. (These are all Intra - State Escalations are designed to provide State Actors with an opportunity to do something about unlawful activity, notwithstanding the position of the person engaged in said activity).
And, speaking of bad faith on Civil Forfeiture, check this out from the Canada’s Justice Review Board “Civil Forfeiture in Canada”:
“Canada’s provincial forfeiture laws were originally intended to deter crime and compensate victims. In Canada today, civil forfeiture is not exclusively used to satisfy these objectives. It has instead become a supplement or alternative to the criminal law.” “Revenues obtained through successive forfeiture proceedings are returned to provincial governments and their law enforcement agencies”. (ED: clearly having the appearance of a conflict). “Canada’s civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize and transfer ownership of property without compensation when the property is suspected of being used to commit an illegal act or is suspected of having been acquired by committing an illegal act. Originally intended to make committing such illegal acts less profitable and to provide compensation to victims, Canada’s civil forfeiture laws rarely accomplish these state goals and are fraught..problems.” “The provinces routinely use their civil forfeiture laws to circumvent important procedure protection that have been the courts.”
As the Minister knows well, my wife and I made an application for compensation under the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. A lawyer with the last name ‘Lawless’ (ED: can’t make this stuff up) from Liberal law firm O’Connor Bion in Victoria, B.C. wrote back indicating (awkwardly) that no application was first made for a declaration of Unlawful Activity. The RCMP involvement in Investigation if it tracks along a good faith line of inquiry, should assist with this Application being initiated by the BC Attorney General’s Office, should this become necessary.
This letter therefore represents an escalation of that decision from the Lawless lawyer representing the BC Attorney General's Office on the matter of compensation under Civil Forfeiture laws. I believe that BC’s Civil Forfeiture Act is a fraud on the Public. The Federal Government admits that no money is going to the victim, it's going to the government or to the cops. The Complaint to the RCMP at this time, and in this place thus makes PERFECT sense, as the police are enjoined in the fraud on the Public Interest under Civil Forfeiture laws in BC, which laws were initiated by the Federal Government of Canada.
Keep in mind as I educate the Minister, that British Columbia’s Executive (Horgan/Cabinet) is at the center of the Civil Forfeiture legislation in the province. They can do anything they choose, override, initiate an action itself etc. The Public Safety Minister (Farnworth in BC) is also featured in the Civil Forfeiture legislation as having the capacity to submit Requisition to the Finance Minister on the basis of demand for payment to victims of Unlawful activity. Farnworth, who knows the writer, will have to choose between backing the State, no matter its breaches in law and conscious miscarriage of justice and glaring malfeasance, or do what he ought to do in the Public Interest and side with the Canadians who represent the Public Interest, namely Glen and Ita Robbins. His decision here will likely also influence the remainder of his political career (ED: as he already owes GPR ‘one’). Tik Tok.
In British Columbia, my Research firm since 1998 ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) also has “Sniper Writers” inclusive of GPR, ordered by Robbins to prepare adverse political interest material against John Horgan’s BC NDP Government. Despite some distance from the next BC provincial election, former BC Finance Minister Kevin Falcon may/will be the BC Liberal leader in under a year (ED: or to protect the State and Horgan, BC Liberals may have to put another fool like Andrew Wilkinson in leadership role), COVID by that time will have become the most unpopular event in everyone’s lifetime, and Horgan’s Team will draw even with the BC Liberals.
Why would a fellow who went to the same schools as GPR for 12 years, is familiar with our grand family in Victoria (ED: Where else would you find 9 Menza types (7 children - 2 parents in the same home - all children successful), be so stubborn in light of these realities, so easily attached to the former BC Liberal governments. Doesn’t he want my wife and I to be properly compensated? Doesn’t he want to do the right thing?
I would like to say to Horgan, maybe you should ask your RCMP detail about the Afghan war veteran with PTSD (ED: Whom GPR assisted with his alcohol addiction and became close friends with) who provided relevant information in a case where another Afghan war vetern was threatening to use weapons against government personal, and the RCMP/Veterans Affairs told the unwell man making the threats that my friend was the Whistleblower. My friend has to move to the United States, and everytime he returned to Canada he was driven to and fro by police -( and paid $10,000 per month for his trouble).
Justin Trudeau gave Arar, the terrorist who killed Americans $11 Million in compensation singing the praises of this decision and how that we are lucky to pay the killer this money he would get three times that from trial . I have said it before and will say it again, who deserves the compensation more, Ita and Glen Robbins or the terrorist?
(ED: GPR has a daughter marrying a Texan, the idea of dual citizenship really appeals to GPR). So, currently then, Trudeau and Horgan are two guys who have to go. I will make up my mind over the subsequent weeks. It takes patience and time, but predicting you're going to lawfully take out leader(s), and then making sure it happens, just adds to the Power and Legend. Ensure it stays close, but Horgan loses. Then if necessary reignite against the BC Liberals under Falcon. Trudeau’s Liberals are 4 points ahead of O’Tooles Conservatives according to mainstream pollsters. Anything can happen when all the 'shotsnaps' in time are in play!
O’Toole’s facing a residual blockade from ROBBINS because of the bevy of corrupt judges Evangelical Stephen Harper has appointed. Harper takes out his troublemakers and O’Toole is one step closer to Prime Minister. An RCMP Investigator should easily find all of this malfeasance out. In game theory, the RCMP is on one hand the ‘least responsible’ for the cause of the tort claim, but on the other, the most exposed of the defendants. They had no part in the original criminality (ED: that we know of), court fraud, etc. that job was left to certain few lawyers and judges, but got conned into their illegal actions by persons with no authority to contract independently with the RCMP in British Columbia.
These actions are indicative of a clear lack of training. Mr. and Mrs. RCMP could you tell the court the basis upon which your perceived authority sent you to attend to 1355 Honeysuckle Lane that morning? Ans - err the Bailiffs asked us...Response: ‘Doesn’t the Bailiff Act in BC establish provisions and limitations to their authority in civil elections including provisions designed for circumstances involving the police, like a court order? RCMP Reply: ‘I had no idea.’
However, as I suggested to the RCMP Civil Complaint, the lawyers/judges will say ‘but for’ the RCMP, the incident of the State sanctioned home invasion might not have come to such a disastrous outcome. If the RCMP follows an appropriate path of investigation they will ask: ‘What were the RCMP Officers doing at the residence when they had no constitutional authority, or any legal authority to attend?’ What possessed them to detain Glen P. Robbins following instructions from family legal counsel that the property should not be given up unless there is a valid vacant possession order?
The key word here is a valid vacant possession order, which there was not. As former BC Court of Appeal Justice Gow determined: “The tortfeasor (defendant) takes his victim as he finds him”. The RCMP that day found my wife and I subjected to Unlawful conduct initiated by lawyers ( and lawyers made judges). Too bad for them they did not seek evidence of an impartial authority granting the Bailiffs cause to use Force.
When Institutions and Systems get used to doing things their own way, and not the way of the Rules or of the Law, quite frankly, as in this Public Interest case of Glen and Ita Robbins - the most important of its kind in Canadian history - International history -- problems are bound to occur.
Fenlon’s vacant possession order of December 2014 - the second vacant possession order applied to the same ‘buyer’ taken under H130330 (the first during the stay of execution April 24, 2014) and second all involving the same house and same transaction (also) obtained ex parte is most disconcerting. (ED: Cambridge and Bakonyi served the application for a 2nd crooked vacant possession order to Honeysuckle Lane, a home they knew they had already taken). (ED: Lady, yea you dummy, just open the file the registrar provides when court is called to order). Question: ‘Did Mr. Robbins ask you to contact your superior office and ask that you leave? RCMP Answer: ‘Yes’.
I expect the RCMP to do a deal with my wife and I, and expose these frauds herein. Keep in mind under Canadian law, in a case like this, if and when people are sent to jail, a lower punitive damage amount can be considered. A couple of orange jumpsuits for lawyers can save the taxpayer some money. Who cares if a couple of rotten apple lawyers go to jail? Certainly not Glen P. Robbins. (ED: ‘I’ll pull the switch’ he bellows (LOL)).
Do lawyers Bakonyi, Ellis Roadburg and Kleisinger of the Law Society of BC possess special rights that enable them to break the Court Rules, file fraudulent orders, and ignorance of Independent Judicial orders because they are lawyers who belong to the Law Society of BC. Hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent money laundered agreements/mortgages like the Robbins are filed at Land Title Registry. It is a landfill of malfeasance.
All the police have to do is identify the original agreement made between Peet and Cowan Financial and Ita Robbins et al, produced on British Columbia letterhead at 98.7%. This illegal agreement is then laundered through a sister company Cambridge Mortgage and registered at 8.9%/9.2% at Land Title BC. It is not possible to declare an Annual Percentage Rate (A.P.R.) the legal designation for any mortgage under Canada’s ---- repeat Canada’s Interest Act (denoted in Land Title docs as such) with more than one interest rate attached. This Land Title registration was filed by another Law Society of BC member, not Bakonyi.
(ED: Let me whisper a secret to the Reader. Under BC’s laws, mortgage brokers receive a certain percentage of the total amount loaned, usually 3-4 percent. If the lender is the beneficiary of 50 percent or more of the agent's fees, then the lender must declare these amounts as Interest under the Canada Interest Act. The only way around the federal law was the document laundering (money laundering) occurring. This is relevant because Cambridge Mortgage and Peet and Cowan Financial had investors in each of these ‘sister’ companies. Every time Peet and Cowan Financial Services laundered an agreement through Cambridge Mortgage (the two same owners) they were guilty of acting against their investors, giving away shareholder assets (the cash - agreement / financial asset) from one company to another).
Not so bad if you own both companies, but if your investment is in Peet and Cowan Financial Services and your investment is transferred to Cambridge Mortgage Investment Fund without consideration or compensation, this is tunnelling and it's illegal).
Law Society of BC members Bakonyi and Ellis defended the illegal mortgage, admitted to it, the evidence is prima facie, right on the initial agreement document, and littered through BC’s corrupt court system using fraudulent filings like the Order Made After Application of May 28, 2013 (Bakonyi & Ellis teamed up for that fraud - producing a document to a court event that never happened - Fenlon later signs it - her 2nd order on the same subject (again)), and then the failure to file the Stay of Execution ordered April 7, 2014 by Kloegman J., yet unfiled.
Introducing the vexatious litigant order of Hinkson CJ April 10, 2014, into Bakonyi/Cambridge’s submissions to the SCC under 35772 (leave app on order nisi - foreclosure), which order was obtained through court filing fraud perpetrated by Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society of BC, and appointed Justice Hinkson (Judges Act), attaches permanent state or condition of fraud, inextricably linking the Supreme Court of Canada and the BC Supreme Court, and a number of its Officers into that state or condition of fraud, fraud being described as actions intentional to illegally or unlawfully take another person's property.
If law is related to science then none of the superior courts are presently competent jurisdictions because the Constitutional guarantee is that Judges are Independent, when it has been proved by Glen and Ita Robbins that some of them are not, and that some of them have likely colluded either directly or indirectly in this unlawful conduct conspiracy against the Robbins. The Courts are thus proven to be ultra vires the Constitution.
Other opportunities available for Bakonyi and Cambridge at BC Court of Appeal and such to ‘come clean’ and do the right thing were not taken, including an agreement with Robbins then lawyer Ross Davidson, retained to handle the original appeal of the order nisi at BC Court of Appeal and with whom Bakonyi/Cambridge agreed to pay for an actuarial report related to the Annual Percentage Rate of 98.7 percent in the original agreement with Peet and Cowan Financial Services.
It was Peet and Cowan’s legal obligation to do this in the first place as it had posted the amount on the agreement, on BC Government letterhead Logo affixed. The Registrar of Mortgages at the time, provided with a copy of this original agreement in Complaint escalation, at 98.7% designated APR described this as a “clerical error” and refused to do anything about it. Samantha Gale CEO of Mortgage Brokers is well familiar with the fraud. Her letter to Glen and Ita Robbins from that time period following the State Sanctioned Home Invasion affirmed that Annual Percentage Rates must be disclosed, its the law. Nearly 10 years since the original 98.7% agreement - and the criminal rate still holds, laundered nicely through Land Title BC at two different rates of 8.9/9.2 percent, an impossible registration as the Federal Interest Act calls for only one rate calculated semi annually but not in advance.
By calling the 98.7% APR a clerical error, the Registrar was affirming along with Cambridge and Peet and Cowan lawyer, Bakonyi their mutual admission that an independent assessment of the APR was required, and Bakonyi’s clients were obligated to pay for it. This independent assessment has yet to materialize.

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