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 2 of 3 Volumes - relating to March 25, 2021 letter  May 17, 2021

Last paragraph from Volume I: 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.
I would note that just days following this agreement at BC Court of Appeal between Bakonyi and Robbins lawyer Davidson, Davidson quit. No reason given, but it is noteworthy that Davidson was hired because his law practice involved Land Title Registrar.
It was the Canadian Competition Bureau which had received the Robbins complaint about the two party participation involved in the money laundering/fraudulent mortgage registration by Cambridge Mortgage, considered under the federal legislation Competition Act (ED: meaning this is not the first time this has occurred. Actually a company named Cambridge was cited by the Federal government in 2001 for this exact malfeasance). The Competition Bureau of Canada indicated that BC’s FICOM was responsible for addressing the complaint as they are responsible for mortgage brokers. The Competition Bureau of Canada had NO idea that FICOM had no responsibility for Mortgage Brokers, who like BC Lawyers were self regulating. Money lenders self regulating - that’s a good idea like lawyers and real estate agents LOL).
One thing lawyer Davidson did do which is noteworthy is that he filed an Enduring Power of Attorney at the Land Title Office - Ita Robbins granting this attorney to Glen P. Robbins, while Glen P. Robbins granted an equivalent attorney to Ita Robbins. Anyone conducting due diligence would be able to determine this and realize that legally Glen P. Robbins was Ita Robbins attorney, and It's Robbins was Glen P. Robbins attorney in October 2013 following the resignation of Ross Davidson as their mutual attorney.
This explains why Bakony/Cambridge, Ellis/BMO filed the fraudulent Order Made After Application fraud relating to the matter of right of audience. Without it, and with Enduring Powers of Attorney (not a regular power of attorney which a lawyer would presume to rebut with), Glen P. Robbins would most certainly have been given an audience with the Master at the Conduct of Sale application of Bakonyi/Cambridge at least to explain the circumstances and ask for a Trial Date with a Judge on the matter. With the fraudulent order Bakonyi and Ellis were able to give the impression that Fenlon J. made the order across the entire foreclosure process and not just the order nisi application, which the original procedural order was intended to address, mistaken as it too was.
It is probably more succinct to say that nothing the Law Society of BC members and Judges implicated in this Public tragedy did was lawful. It was all a hoax and intentional corruption. Pretty casual about it, like it was happening each and every day.
Once the resolution and compensation are agreed to by Glen and Ita Robbins, and the City of Coquitlam and Royal Canadian Police, under affixed Report detailing the fraud by the lawyers, recommending criminal charges against them, then these potentialites place Ita and Glen Robbins in a position to really choke compensation ($$$$) out of the most guilty BC lawyers and Judicial appointments (lawyers by any other name), as well as the Federal and Provincial government, thus making it easier to come to a resolution with the RCMP. I note that informal resolution elements of the RCMP Complaints Investigation call for resolution in writing.
This does not preclude it from being a private agreement should the parties agree.
But this is a resolution - settlement between a State actor and employees of that State actor. The Robbins are common ordinary people (at least according to law), and police interact with ordinary people far more than lawyers or judges do. Providing the Robbins with swift compensation makes the RCMP the friend of Glen P. Robbins, (or at least not the enemy). Exposing these nasty lawyers makes both the RCMP and the Robbins, the friends of the Public.
Glen P. Robbins favourite hang out is the Shuswap near his best buddy in Salmon Arm. He loves it up there. The RCMP are there. No problem, sweet as Tupelo Honey (ED: See also Van Morrison).
Here is what the decision maker at CJC File: 20-0265 and letter dated October 21, 2020 had to say as this concerns Hinkson and Fenlon.
“You addressed your letter to the Chief Justice of Canada.” “The Review Procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council prescribe...complaints must be reviewed by the Executive Director.” (ED: In fact the Complaint was sent to the Executive Director Norman Sabourin who apparently took a short sabbatical when our Complaints were filed, and is now back again after the former NS Chief Justice acting as Executive Director for the apparent purpose of dealing with our Complaint. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is the Chair of the CJC (and implicated as a regular Judge tied to the legal and court frauds, perversions of justice, office etc in British Columbia).
“Your recent correspondence raises issues of the same nature......”and adds no relevant information that may require the intervention of Council.” (ED: The Hinkson Complaint is new - so this statement wouldn’t apply as a reason to Hinkson CJ. I assert on behalf of myself, my wife and others this is evidence of continued bad faith by the Federal Government as a proper Complaint Investigation would easily prove that the criteria for an Inquiry and potential removal of a Judge (referenced later) has been met in both cases, for both judges. I would reassert that the Complainants sought an informal solution (or formal) of an apology from the Judges, which would not necessarily expose them personally to litigation, but would most certainly help to resolve the legal matter).
Given this decision maker’s inept investigation at CJC, and absent any proper and professional review of the facts, law and arguments provided at CJC (former political appointment to NS Judge McDonald), I would implore the Minister to provide the CJC with a ‘wake up call’ (the WokeJudge as it were), and direct the CJC to properly investigate and produce an Inquiry into these Judges conduct. Quit stalling please, it is evidence of the Minister NOT acting in good faith or in bad faith.
One can see from the 2019 Vavilov decision at SCC that Hinkson CJ’s conduct in the case against Glen P. Robbins is nothing less than diabolical fraud. His kangaroo court vexatious litigant order later became a chief component of the fraudulent evidence submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada 35772 in Ita Robbins v Cambridge.
Hinkson used his control of the court administration to mastermind Bakonyi’s opportunity and fraud. He actions through the legal concept of causal inference have hooked the Bakonyi Cambridge fraud of court filings BCSC H130330, contempt of judicial orders, obtaining orders from a court of law under false pretense during a period of stay of execution ------ to him in his position as Chief Justice.
In fact, we can provide proof that this isn’t merely a coincidental circumstance and that Hinkson, Kleisinger and Bakonyi colluded. Prior to Hinkson’s March 20, 2014 vexatious litigant order under S111171, one can see from a perusal of BC Court Services Online that Glen P. Robbins last filed a court action in February 2013 under 149328 (New Westminster courthouse). This is the original lawsuit against Cambridge Mortgage, Peet and Cowan Financial, the BC Government etc.. It was filed and served a month prior to Cambridge filings its petition for foreclosure under Vancouver courthouse H130330.
AND keep in mind--former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin says: “The Public is entitled to the facts.”
Here is additional information relating to Unlawful actions taken by Chief Justice Hinkson which should serve to expose the totality of his motives and activities, further seeding the foundation of the Complaints against him (and now others) (ED: along with potential lawsuits to follow). These circumstances have not been seen before in previous submissions. Might this explain why the CJC is resisting to take down Hinkson?
Five months after Hinkson’s April 10 2014 vexatious litigant order, (September 2015), GPR and Its Robbins filed a joint Requisition (ED: keep in mind a court action may only be commenced through a notice of claim, petition or requisition). This Requisition is accepted under Action No.: 16499 in New Westminster courthouse in perfect compliance with Hinkson’s order as a leave to the court application for a new hearing No complications, no Hinkson. Perfect.
Readers ought to keep in mind that when this document was filed, Glen and Ita Robbins knew Hinkson’s actions were Unlawful and their actions on new filings, valid in motive, tended to draw him out to make further mistakes, and the foolish judge went to it like a big blue bass going for a delicious fly.
No court action occurs on the new file 16499 other than application responses from some of the proposed defendants, but not others. Here is where this gets more interesting. These are the proposed Defendants for the record who are now exposed because of Hinkson: “BC Government Employees, Board of Directors of Cambridge Investment Corp., Board of Directors of Peet & Cowan Financial Services, Consolidated Active Bailiffs Inc., Consumer Protection BC, Financial Commission of BC, Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia, Office of British Columbia Ombudsperson, Office of the Auditor General of B.C., Official Opposition of British Columbia, Sutton West Coast Realty, The Law Society of BC, The Office of the BC Supreme Court Chief Justice and Assistant Chief Justice, (and) Christy Clark” (ED: no wonder Cullen fled when he had the chance).
Eight months later in March 2015, GPR and Ita Robbins filed a similar type Requisition in perfect form under 149328. This Requisition is to adjourn an application before the court versus Cambridge Mortgage (who had abdicated its right to respond by not filing an Application Response to their application as they had failed to do in H130330). Hinkson’s vexatious litigant order only calls for a leave application on any new action, not on actions already before the Court. One can see how rushed Hinkson was to produce the vexatious litigant order through his actions taken on the new filings, so rushed, that he tripped over his own feet to help the conspirators lawyers at the Law Society of BC.
This Requisition filed at 149328 by Glen and Ita Robbins is also compliant with Hinkson’s order of April 10, 2014. It differs from the successful Requisition filed under 16499 however in that two hundred pages of evidence are affixed to the filed Affidavit under 149328. Stupid Chris Hinkson never mentioned evidence under Affidavit in his order. He only ordered the length of the Affidavit. Notwithstanding that the Requisition was in total compliance with Hinkson’s order and not only provided the Registrar Hinkson’s April 10, 2014 order, but referenced that order at the top of the Requisition and application. In perfect compliance with the fraudster Judge’s orders from on high.
Nevertheless, Hinkson becomes aware of this application and makes a motion under S111171 (the vexatious litigant order in contempt of the Grauer J. order {ED: tangled web we weave eh?} with notice or hearing that Glen and Ita Robbins may not file ANY documents in BC Supreme Court.
This order permits applicant defendants to file applications for dismissal without hearing in both 149328, the lawsuit, and 164699 - the lawsuit post Hinkson’s vexatious litigant order of April 10, 2014.
As further proof Hinkson CJ using the court facilities he is in charge of to benefit his Law Society friends, but himself as well, let’s also examine the April 10, 2014 order (3 days following the stay of execution order). In that order Hinkson asserts that he did not read the application of Glen P. Robbins. Here is that filing history once more. Kleisinger for the applicant Law Society of BC files a Rule 8 application under S111171 which is another different matter at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Chief Justice Hinkson, Kleisinger’s former law partner, accepts this errant application, referring to it as a petition, which it is not. A Petition must be filed at the Civil Registry. The Law Society’s application was not filed there. Glen P. Robbins files a response to the application which is called for when a rule 8 application is made. If this were a Petition as the delusional (or crooked) Chief Justice says it was, then GPR must file a response to the petition.
So, a Rule 8 interlocutory application is filed first by the Law Society of BC, then GPR files a response to application, in a matter the decision maker (Hinkson) says he believes is a Petition. Along with GPR’s application response GPR files another application (to go on the offence). CJ Hinkson then asserts that he did not read GPR’s Application in his Reasons, a comment suggesting that he DID read the application response (the defence). Cleverly, Glen P. Robbins filed an exact replica of the application response (the defence) as his application as well (the offence). Hinkson hadn’t read either the application response or the application, that is why his Reasons read rushed and unprofessional.
When Hinkson CJ first reserved judgment at the March 20, 2014 vexatious litigant hearing (miscarriage of justice - Dickson CJ - SCC), he said all of the evidence was going to take a long time to determine. Trial Scheduling Manager Sue Smolen informed GPR that this normally meant a delay (reserve) of 30-90 days. The order came out 20 days later, without proper Reasons relating to the hearing (of any kind). Ita and Glen P. Robbins asserts that Hinkson was aware that Bakonyi/Cambridge (the Law Society of BC generally) were in big trouble and rushed the order to their benefit. All other actions he took which in context of those and relating to this hearing were Unlawful and designed to benefit the crooked lender and crooked lawyer. (ED: If it looks, walks, and quacks like a dirty lawyer & dirty judge - what is it then?).
Hinkson CJ was Bakonyi and Ellis’s and their clients' back up plan. Both Chief Justices of British Columbia’s Superior Courts are co Chairs of the Vancouver Foundation, essentially an investment firm involved with many instruments of commerce that have Interest Rates as a feature. This doesn’t look independent on its face.
At a minimum, Hinkson’s conduct must be considered an abject failure on the basis of the Vavilov test for ‘correctness’ in addition to dealing with it as a direct Complaint against Hinkson CJ sufficient to seek his removal. Enraged, (ED: likely at his own oversight and stupidity) Hinkson files his own motion for an order that Glen and Ita Robbins cannot file any documents in any BC Court whatsoever.
Hinkson’s clear abuse of his Office, and his participation in subverting the BC Court Civil Rules, allowed the defendants, including Cambridge, under both court actions 149328 and 164699 to file successful applications and obtain ex parte orders for dismissal. Hinkson April 10, 2014 order aids and abets Bakonyi/Cambridge et al to commit fraud at his court under H130330 and the Supreme Court of Canada 35772 (Ita Robbins v Cambridge), his subsequent order without hearing in Spring 2015 permits Bakonyi/Cambridge to obtain a dismissal of the lawsuit against them under both actions, as 164699 was seeking to sue the Directors of both lenders as well as the company already featured in the Style of Cause under 149328.
The April 10, 2014 order for vexatious litigant is based on a fraud on the court, the second order offers no opportunity for a response Team Robbins, and has no lawful grounds for it being made. We would ask that both of Hinkson’s orders of April 10, 2014 and March 2015 be reversed as if they had never occurred. A “Nullity”.
Hinkson worked far too hard to break the Court’s own Rules and ignore any constitutional rights of Glen and Ita Robbins to be considered an Independent Judge. He must be removed as a Judge. Once Hinkson’s dirty orders are removed, nullified, overturned, then those parties mentioned will be exposed to litigation, including potentially, former BC Premier Christy Clark.
If an ‘apology’ is (apparently) too much to ask, and, alternatively, ‘correctness’ from Vavilov finds resistance, then I must conclude that Judges have become -so Independent- that they break the court rules or ignore the law as they choose. That is evidence of deductive reasoning.
(ED: And likely a sure sign Canada is already a communist country).
Apparently, (at least through the experience of my wife and myself), some Judges orders have meaning, while others don’t. Hinkson’s crooked orders matter, Grauer J’s ‘Vavilovian’ challenged Reasons do not. Fenlon’s misguided ‘helter skelter’ crooked orders matter (ED: Manson reference not totally out of line) (ED: I can hear Harper - ‘is she crazy good I’ll take her). Grauer’s do not. Hinkson’s crooked orders matter, Kloegman’s stay of execution order does not. It's so embarrassing for the Government. It’s very embarrassing for the Courts. What happens when the Public begins to replace the designation “Judge” with the noun “Clown”? (ED: All rise for Chief Clown Emmett Kelly-- no visible drinking of alcohol in the courtroom (LOL)).
Who speaks for Kloegman J’s order for stay of execution? Hinkson is blocking our capacity to file it or get the remaining money in the court account (which is a significant amount {but attracting better interest than Euro bonds (LOL)). He is doubling up trouble for the Minister and Trudeau because of this because I charge his actions to the government in power, and all the while he is Stephen Harper’s Consersative “boy”. Why would the Minister ignore the Independence of Kloegman J. on one hand, and then defend the actions of a dirty judge with no respect for the Constitution and Charter of Rights appointed by Stephen Harper? (ED: The Federal Liberal government should be paying ‘us’ whistleblower bucks).
To this point I introduce this from Minister Lametti via his agent Gauthier at the Department of Justice Canada. In that April 27, 2021 letter relating to the Complaints against Judges Ms. Gauthier writes for Mr. Lametti: “Our system is based on the constitutional principle that judges must render their decisions independently.”
Judge Kloegman rendered her decision April 7, 2014. In her decisions she (1) ordered a stay of execution from April 7, 2014 until April 30, 2014 under BC Supreme Court file H130330; and (2) directed that pro se lawyer Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”) has custody of establishing new hearing Dates. On April 10, 2014 during the Stay of Execution under H130330, Chris Hinkson in his role as Chief Justice made an inappropriate order of vexatious proceeding (litigant) against GPR ALSO under case file BCSC S111171. A Petition should have been filed at Civil Court Registry to commence the vexatious litigant matter.
As the details of these events continue to unravel and expose the happily colluded lawlessness of ‘the State’, and the feckless nature of Judicial Independence in Canada, we will see that Hinkson’s abuse of Office and court filing frauds undertaken with Law Society Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger, are then used during this same stay period in April 2014 to have the Supreme Court of Canada case Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage 35772 (appeal of Fenlon orders) corrupted by attracting a vexatious procedure order (Ed: Technically there is no such thing legally as a vexatious litigant). We say that Hinkson CJ and Kleisinger put the State in Contempt of Kloegman’s orders, while Fenlon J. put the State of Contempt in Grauer J’s orders.
No Reasons are provided for the CJC’s dismissal of our Complaint against Hinkson and no Reasons are provided relating to the furtherance of Complaint against Fenlon by former NS Judge McDonald despite evidence predicated mostly on court filings. This isn’t a case of opinion, there is no reversing the filed documents. The only Reason provided by McDonald would be that the Complaint was addressed ‘incorrectly’ to Chief Justice Wagner. On its face this is not true, as the Complaint was in fact sent to Norman Sabourin the listed Executive Director of the CJC, who apparently remains in that position, (once McDonald had finished with his temporary spot at that position in dismissing our Complaints).
My response to what I believe was an arrogant and condescending letter from the CJC representative was posted online at www.robbins sce Obviously, I exposed the CJC as very arrogant, and explained it as a defensive evasive posture in keeping with the bad faith claims made against it. Chief Justice Wagner’s pledge to reform the CJC fell flat on its face, now questions must be asked, (as to whether or not he intended to mean it). Remember, Superior Court Judicial appointments, though deemed as Federal appointments owing to the Constitution and the Judges Act, are still just lawyers, made judges by other lawyers and the Law Society. Politics going in, and apparently politics (and serious conflicts) going out.
As I have demonstrated, a complete lack of good faith occurred in the CJC decision. The Judges are circling the wagons (ED: solidarity for their brothers and sisters in the Judges/Lawyers Union). The former Judge writing the letter failed to address any of the issues in the submissions, and thus no reasons are found when they must be provided under law.
What the Government advertises as law, rules, or policy and what it actually does with what it advertises are often two different things, or as in the case of Civil Forfeiture helping victims of Unlawful Activities --- it simply doesn’t exist as claimed.
At the bottom of your 3rd paragraph the Minister writes: “I note that you have already submitted a complaint to the CJC”.
Would you please edify the writer as to when you noted this. What date specifically was it noticed? Who in the Office noted this? Has the Minister read this file? Has anyone close to him read the file? The Minister’s Office received copies of this information by registered mail two years ago. I would note as well that former Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould was notified in December 2015 of the criminal code violation of Ron Bakony and Robert Ellis concerning an Order Made After Application (May 2013 H130330), where no Application (affidavit) or Application Response (affidavit) and notice of service occurred.
The December 2015 letter to then Liberal Justice Minister lawyer Jody Wilson Raybould (now sitting as an Independent in the House of Commons), September 2016 submissions “Read” by Justice Gordon Brown outlining the “criminal” activities of the lawyers and these Judges as considered by Martins 2013 Criminal Code, 2018 submissions to John Horgan “In Personam”, 2019 submissions to Justin Trudeau “In Personam”, 2019 submissions to the BC Supreme Court and to two of the Assistant Chief Justice(s), 2020 submissions to the Cullen Commission - advanced to Commission lawyers, 2021 (accepted) complaint to the RCMP. And keep in mind my wife and I applied to Kloegman J. for a Stay of Proceedings on H130330 based on the filing of the fraudulent Order Made After Application which the Hinkson Law Society conjunctive court fraud is apparently obstructing.
And keep in mind the Supreme Court of Canada Rules call for a stay of execution order to be provided to that court from the lower court where it was obtained. Bakonyi was required to submit the stay order in his submissions responses or replies to the ongoing leave application at that Court under 35772. When Wagner closed the filed because of Hinkson’s vexatious litigant order, he was unaware of the Stay of Execution order of Kloegman. The end of Transcript from the April 7, 2014 Hearing shows Bakonyi wanting to control the filing of the orders. He knew he had lost his application and was moving on with Plan B - the big fraud. Everyone knows this now. What are you going to do? Does doing nothing seem viable or credible?
And keep in mind the Offers to Settle to both senior levels of government made by Glen and Ita Robbins included a ‘without prejudice’ offer from Glen P. Robbins wherein he would agree to receive zero dollars, providing his wife and the other women involved were settled with.
This communication to the former Federal Liberal Attorney General occurred in December 2015. Jody Wilson Raybould could have stopped all of this with one independent look under BC Court Services from her office just down the street from the BC Supreme Court on Smithe Street. She/He would have seen a Petition for foreclosure filed with Affidavit from the Petitioner Cambridge Mortgage, but no separate Application. How could an Order After Application occur when no Application occurred in the first place.
My wife and I can no longer file documents in any BC Court, nor can any other real lawyer, based on Hinkson’s two corrupt orders.
GPR’s Intervenor application to the Supreme Court of Canada under Docket: 36602 (Google v Equustek), exposed the document trail of the entire court fraud out west in the BC Supreme Court(s), the contempt of court, perverting the course of justice, the administration of justice, high office and all that. I was not charged “Costs” despite nearly 300 pages of document evidence. This evidence is in the S.C.C. Court Archive under Google v Equustek 36602.
I note for delicious irony excerpt of that which I filed in my 200 page Affidavit in support of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Google expose. The Police Investigation has to include this for certain.
I take the opportunity now to note my September 19, 2016 ‘Notice of Intervention to Supreme Court of Canada - Google v Equustek'' Supreme Court of Canada File No.: 36602 and, commencing at paragraph 3 of that Notice - …”That criminal submissions and affidavit of Glen P. Robbins have been provided to the Federal Minister of Justice and to BC Prosecution Services and (the) Canadian Judicial Council in relation to BC Supreme Court matters (H30330 - Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins and another) and (S111171). H130330 involves Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon and S111171 involves BC Chief Justice Chris Hinkson and Law Society of British Columbia Compliance Officer (sic) Michael Kleisinger as well as Executive Director - Timothy McGee.”
‘(H130330 appeal of extension of time for filing leave to appeal at SCC under 35772 {Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment}, while S111171 appeal of Costs (ED: at the time) heard at SCC under 35302 Robbins v Law Society of BC).
‘These are a series of questionable actions undertaken by Justice Lauri Fenlon of H130330 which greatly contributed to Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis and their clients Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc./BMO’s larceny - - in their aggressive pursuit of abuse (of) the administration of justice, including (a) Her Honour permitting his constitutional discretion in matters of right of audience to overridden by provincial law society legislation (ED: Itself a serious controversy), (b) Her signing an Order Made After Application made in her name in relation to the outcome associated with “a” herein, where no Application was first made, nor evidence in support submitted as required by the BC Supreme Court Rules,...(and) (d) making order for vacant possession December 4, 2014, when an order for vacant possession had already been obtained April 24th, 2014 from Nathan Smith in the apparent role of BC Supreme Court Judge in his role as an appellate judge of that lower court during the period of stay of execution ordered by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014 and (relating to the appeal of the Conduct of Sale order obtained from Masters (a provincial employee) where the fraudulent Order Made After Application document was used to trick that provincial employee into making an inappropriate order denying GPR a right of audience).
So, a Federally appointed Judge (Fenlon) participated in the fraud of a Provincial Master (employee of the British Columbia Government). (ED: Nice work if you can get it).
Under BCSC H130330, we have Fenlon J. giving a preliminary order (no evidence) that Glen P. Robbins could not have a right of audience, because of an order from Justice Grauer (ED: related to section 15 (5) of the BC LPA later amended owing to Grauers criticism as to its poor drafting), who heard the original case under S111171, which order had absolutely nothing to with the right of audience., (in fact, Grauer J. said quite the opposite), Fenlon was a former subordinate to Elizabeth Lyall at her old firm Fasken Martineau. Ms. Lyall’s name was clearly present on the front page (and where Lyall really stunk the house out (Ian Mulgrew wrote an embarrassing article). Because of these realities, Fenlon J. ought to have recused herself. Discretion doesn’t/shouldn’t exist in this circumstance.
(Speaking of Elizabeth Lyall), her firm Fasken Martineau of Vancouver, BC promotes on its website the Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins original case, where Lyall acted for the Petitioner, the Law Society. Lyall ought to be complaining that her efforts relating to the subject of section of the LPA, were subverted by Hinkson co-opting that file she was lead counsel for the respondents on. Instead, she orders her firm’s website to change the file number S111171 to BC 1310 to help hide the S111171 court file and the obvious court fraud.
But in direct context and visibility of the style of cause posted on her site, the Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins, Fasken and Lyall also ‘crow’ of another client, other than the Law Society of BC - GPR case (S111171) (SCC 35302), it’s *Aurion Capital Management (ED: *owned by Jewish persons, Toronto, Ontario Canada). Why is a private corporation headquartered in Toronto, Ontario operating under the laws of that province (apparently) funding actions undertaken by the Law Society of BC against a private citizen lawfully representing his wife in court proceedings involving their longtime family home?
Nice country Canada!
Imagine that! Keep in mind also at this time that 5 of Canada’s 9 Supreme Court Justices (ED: over 60 percent) are Jewish as well, despite Jewish people representing 2 percent of the population. Both Bakonyi (Cambridge) and Ellis Roadburg (BMO) Jewish law firms. What ethnic group is best known historically for charging usurious rates? (ED: Fair comment).
Despite Glen P. Robbins continued demands for adjournment or for Fenlon J. to read the Judgment of Grauer J at Hearing, she refused to do so during the afternoon recess. Grauer’s Reasons for Judgement S111171 was only 14 pages double spaced). --- Fenlon J. then signed an Order Made After Application for the same event she had already made a preliminary order at Hearing. Not satisfied with this role in the larceny, Fenlon J. then signed a second vacation possession order when one had already been made (ED: the one obtained from Nathan Smith J. April 24, 2014 during the stay of execution period).
This is simply too much malfeasance/misfeasance to be anything but intentional. Fenlon J. is obviously a dirty Judge or she was very very confused on this very simple file, many times. Nothing she did was ‘correct’, nothing she did was ‘reasonable’ in light of the facts and the law, not to mention the order she made (confused) from Grauer J., no longer existed, as the law had been changed. What kind of idiot was former Consersative PM Stephen Harper to appoint her?
No notice was provided by the BC Legislature to GPR regarding the change in subsection 15 (5), from Grauer J.’s original order, which respondent GPR had forced to occur with his defence of the Petition. Had GPR known that his defence of S111171 and Grauer J.’s ‘incorrect reasoning’ had forced a change in the law, this would have compelled GPR to broaden his appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada under 35302 Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC. To this latter point, I note the current BC Attorney General David Eby provided written notice to the Court that the Legislature intends to change the law relating to ICBC and BC Medical Services Plan. (ED: Hey David Eby, I didn’t get my letter in the mail when Grauer and I worked to expose how poorly the Legal Professions Act in this case section was written).
Michael Kleisinger, former Compliance Officer @ LSBC, is a *corrupt lawyer who failed to inform GPR during three levels of appeal at the BC Court of Appeal that the law had been amended on the provisions of the BC LPA relating to the Grauer J. decision.
I would also note that in my submissions to the Canadian Judicial Council - I eviscerated Grauer J.’s Reasons. Grauer J. Reasons for Judgment under S111171 are a textbook case for Vavilov. Grauer J. promoted to BC Court of Appeal, Barry Davies, and Nathan Smith have all provided with all binders of information including the complaints by registered mail. Everybody knows.
At every turn, in every circumstance, Ita and Glen Robbins beat the professional lawyers, the judges and the State. We did so on the basis of merit, following the BC Rules to perfection. Two levels of justice and government in Canada. Isn’t it pitiful?
Justice Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada Read criminal submissions under S.C.C. 36602 and although he dismissed the application - he READ the submissions exposing the criminal and/or Unlawful Activity. No Costs were assessed despite the dismissal. The fact that he is very close to Fenlon J. from his time at law school in BC, pictures of his attending law functions (2017), would have easily given him an opportunity to share with her these troublesome actions, so called Independence excuse notwithstanding.
Again, from the 2016 application to the SCC under 36602 I submit under NOTICE: “I have accused Justice Fenlon of acting with malice, with myself, my wife and another and helping lawyers Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis steal our property. The facts are irrefutable.”
“The CRIMINAL submissions and evidence are provided herein under a bound document as part of the Notice of Intervention.” “These allegations have been posted under website under the following link numbers: 1090, 1098, 1099, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1110, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121.”
The Minister was hand delivered the facts, the case law, and arguments reconsidered herein as part of this Escalation, two years ago. I believe he was served “In Personam” as well. I am certain Justin Trudeau was served In Personam as well.
Think about this point in escalation pre Supreme Court of Canada. The RCMP has said it will investigate. How they scope this out, only time will tell. If the actions of the lawyers and judges provided - without rebuttal or communications do not fall within that scope, I would suggest the RCMP are likely cooperating with the State. Nevertheless, a Police Detective is trained to want someone to provide a Statement, their experience is that persons of interest or person being questioned are LESS inclined to do this. Lawyers are trained to limit what their clients in these positions might provide, leaving it to the police to do their job.
At each point of this escalation, of court filing my wife and I have produced flawless impeccable work. The trained lawyers - judges - respond with little or nothing, hiding their responsibility to the Public Interest now embodied by Ita and Glen Robbins, like the Eucharist at Christian sacrament.
All of our positions are stated (overstated some would say). In context of the objective of making every effort to resolve this matter short of the last step to the Supreme Court of Canada, and prior to suing at the Federal Court of Canada, this overkill approach is obviously necessary. Who do you believe the trained investigator would by nature of the job believe right now? My wife and I who have repeated our positions - over and over -or the State. The Criminal Code, RCMP Act (Canada), Police Act (B.C.) and Bailiffs Act (BC) make this a slam dunk win anticipated by Glen and Ita Robbins.
Another example of Ministerial bad faith occurs at paragraph three you write “With respect to your complaints about the judges involved in your case, it may interest you to know that the CJC is empowered under sections 63-69 of the Judges Act to address complaints relating to the conduct of federally appointed judges, which does not usually include a judges decisions either during or at the end of a case.”
I note in paragraph 1 of YOUR April 27, 2021 letter, wherein the Minister “regrets (sic) his delay in responding”.
I will provide your paragraph two in its entirety, as it (respectfully) makes no sense in context of any “Reasoning” whatsoever. From Merriam Webster on Reasoning: “(T)he process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment. The ability of the mind to think and understand things in a logical way.” (ED: Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity).
The Minister writes: “Our justice system is based on the constitutional principle that judges must render their decisions independently, free from improper influence or interference. This enables judges to act impartially in hearing the cases that come before them. Therefore, the Minister cannot intervene in personal cases.”
I have no idea what ‘cannot intervene in personal cases’ means. This statement subsequent to the one on Judicial Independence requires an explanation or some reasoning.
Every case where a person is a party in their ‘personal name’ would by this scant explanation from your Ministry letter is a personal case. What does ‘any case’, (personal or otherwise), have to do with the Independence of the Judge? It is a two sided proposition, The first side is the Concept of Independence - no one may influence that Judge. The other side is that no Judge should be permitted to be influenced by no one (else). Stephen Hawking could not have helped you make sense of this Letter Mr. Minister.
I also note from the last paragraph (where our complaint is addressed) “With respect to your complaints about the judges involved in your case, it may interest you to know that the CJC is empowered under sections 63-69 of the Judges Act to address complaints relating to the conduct of federally appointed judges, which does not usually include a judge’s decisions either during or at the end of a case. I note that you have already submitted a complaint to the CJC.”
The Minister fails to recognize (though ‘served’ with the response to the CJC), that the CJC decision (resplendent in its complete absence of reasoning) has dismissed the Complaints. This letter serves to demand that the Minister either cause a reconsideration of that decision or order an investigation or inquiry. The Police are investigating. They made their decision to take action based on the same information you have in your possession, or otherwise easily available to persons actually seeking the truth, prior to running through the actions of the Judge to be measured by the provisions of the Judges Act. I remind all Readers of the common date the letters from the RCMP and Department of Justice April 27, 2021.
Section 63(1) (from among those you cite) states the following: “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 62(2)(a) to (d).”
(ED: So, other than the CJC itself, both the Minister of Justice Canada and the BC Attorney General can force the CJC to investate….”The Council shall at the request…”...”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..”)
Here are those provisions: “Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge for reasons of (a) age or infirmity; (b) misconduct; (c) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with that office, the Council, in its report to the Minister under subsection (1), may recommend that the judge be removed from office.”
At this juncture, and prior to dealing with some of the actions of the Judges being Complained about, I wish to provide the Minister with this information from “Canadian Lawyer” entitled “SCC overhauls administrative law, clarifies standard of review.” The article is written by Elizabeth Rayner December 2019. A lawyer Margaret Robbins of Lenszner Slaght lawyers in Toronto is cited frequently in the article. (ED: Keep in mind that SCC Judge Brown has had the criminal complaint since the fall of 2016, about 4 years).
“In long-awaited decision in a standard of review appeals- Canada (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov - the court dismissed the appeal of the Ministry of Citizenship...finding that the registrar (ED: appointed employee) decision in declaring the respondents a non citizen was unreasonable.”
“The new framework provides much-needed clarity and guidelines of standard of review.” “It was like opening a Christmas present early” says Margaret Robbins Toronto lawyer, because the case (decision) (sic) was so anticipated.” (ED: Yes, it is a monumental decision - and good news for this Robbins family (LOL)).
“The new framework provides much-needed clarity and guidelines of standard of review.” “It was like opening a Christmas present early” says Margaret Robbins Toronto lawyer, because the case (decision) (sic) was so anticipated.” (ED: Yes, it is a monumental decision - and good news for this Robbins family (LOL)).
“The court (ED: SCC) has looked at what’s happened in the courts and has seen that standard of review analysis has taken up so much of litigants time and efforts,” and says Robbins “...they are providing us with a new framework that will hopefully reduce the amount of time spend arguing what the standard is and give litigants more opportunity to focus on the merits on these appeals and judicial reviews.”
‘The Vavilov decision also identified two types of fundamental flaws that may render a decision unreasonable.’
‘The first is a failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process,’ wrote the majority in their joint reasons.’ ‘The second arises when a decision is in some respect untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on it.’ ‘There is however, no need for reviewing courts to categorize failures of reasonableness as belonging to one type or another. Rather, we use these descriptions simply as a convenient way to discuss the types of issues that may show a decision to be unreasonable.’ (ED: if it's anything like the cases in these Complaints this categorizing would require years (LOL)).
The CJC decision refusing to hear the Complaints may be described as so by the evidence of what the decision maker says (ED: relative to Vavilov). Here is what the decision maker says: “You addressed your letter to the Chief Justice of Canada.” (ED: So what? I addressed it to the attention of the Executive Director Norman Sabourin as well. Was McDonald brought in solely for our case - like a former judge turned judicial hit man (LOL)?)

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