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
Volume 3 of 3 Volumes  May 05, 2021

Here is a repeat of the last paragraph from Volume II produced this week. On Work notes 'heads up' this paragraph is seen as the 3rd paragraph up from page 29 of 40 pages of those work notes. Note to reader, as the notice of these events becomes more compacted, the credibility of the government in particular the judicial system from BC Supreme Courts/BC Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada can be said to have not credibility, bona fide access to justice not actually permitted. No also that in States like Florida and Texas, non lawyers acting as counsel and being active participants in justice is in the majority. (Note - we will be publishing a massive US Poll featuring naturally Donald Trump - but have included Ron DiSantis, Governor of Florida as running mate to get that party started). At this juncture with these publications and service of documents on the State actors, I believe its political fair comment on my country Canada's 'strong and free' to be replaced with 'mickey mouse'.
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)?)
“The Review Procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council prescribe...a complaint must be reviewed by the Executive Director” (ED: Our Complaint was sent to the Executive Director who preceded this decision maker at the CJC). (ED: so what this clever trickster lawyer/former political appointment to judge in the Province of Nova Scotia is implying without saying it is that the Complaint is in improper form, and dismisses it on that basis given the absence of ANY reasoning whatsoever). The Complaint should be reconsidered properly by Norman Sabourin Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council.
“Having reviewed your latest correspondence, it is my view that its not warrant consideration by Council and your complaint is dismissed.” (ED: No reasoning relative to the Complaints provided is forthcoming from the decision maker at CJC - File No.: 20-0265).
At this point, I would demand that the federal Minister make immediate demand under judicial order for evidence of any Reasons provided by the CJC in any Complaint versus Fenlon or Hinkson. There are none in existence to date.
Here are some of the actions undertaken by the two Judges who are the primary targets of the Complaints filed (which information has been before the Minister is detailed for some time now (bad faith)). Note that we have already dealt with the rationality for the Complaints against Lauri Anne Fenlon the decision maker in H130330.
Chris Hinkson (Chief Justice).
Section (a) age or infirmity. Age isn’t an issue, but given Hinkson’s conduct (ED: and some of his judgments anyhow (Hinkson seems to have a real soft spot for Langley BC - Rich Coleman’s old riding - Trinity Western, refusing injunction against churches breaking orders from medical officers). Although I suspect infirmity may be on the table (lol), ‘Hinkson’s as guilty as OJ’ on (b), (c) and (d), and the Minister knows it by the facts of the matter right under his nose.
For the Law Society’s new case on the subject of vexatious litigant to legally proceed, a Petition is required to be filed at BC Civil Desk by the Law Society. Hinkson’s ‘pilot project’ allowed his confederate Michael Kleisinger to use the pilot project as a diversion from the standard court filing, and to enable the Law Societies crooked Rule 8 application with shorter time under the Rules for filing a response. The pilot project was designed for bona fide Rule 8 Interlocutory applications, not Petitions, with a mechanism internal to the pilot project procedures for filing at Trial Scheduling and away from the Civil Filing Desk where they are normally filed.
The problem for Hinkson and the Law Society was that a valid Petition could not be filed through the unique filing apparatus of the pilot project.
A Petition follows a much longer initiating process, and would thereafter likely require a Trial Date which would not have occurred until months and with the delays Hinkson is whining about, possibly as much as a year later. The court ambush designed by crooked lawyers Kleisinger & Hinkson could not have occurred under a valid petition. The accusation is that these two Law Society operatives consciously created the mechanism of the pilot project to engage in a fraud on the court and abuse of Office by both.
Despite where documents are filed, an action involving essentially one subject matter must proceed by Petition. Otherwise, a case can only be initiated by a Notice of Claim or Requisition. A case may never be initiated on the bases of a Rule 8 Interlocutory Application, which must only occur following the filing of a Petition, Notice of Claim or Requisition. It's right in the BC Court Rules. Hinkson referred to a Rule 8 Application as a Petition, he was clearly misapprehended or at least covering his behind and enabling the Law Societies intentional fraud, to establish a rush to hearing/judgment, while Glen and Ita Robbins were occupied in 3 other applications at two different courthouses at the precise same time.
I find it impossible that Hinkson wasn’t in on the Law Society of BC scheme to defraud the courts and the Robbins. What file was placed in front of Hinkson? The S111171 file was related to the Grauer Judgment of October 3, 2011 and ongoing at the SCC, File No 35772. Did Hinkson not see all of this? The application material to the SCC is provided to the lower court. Hinkson had known the initiation of the Law Societies Application was based on deception and using HIS Pilot Project to produce the fraud.
This interlocutory application was filed under BC Supreme Court file No. S111171. This BC Supreme Court file was a petition commenced on the basis of the Legal Profession Act (BC) in February 2011, 3 years before the Kleisinger Hinkson hearing. (ED: Think about the level of manipulation that went into this escapade). The legal concept of Res Judicata would assert that if the Law Society of BC felt that GPR was vexatious why wouldn’t Judge Grauer give them an order they wanted for it at hearing? Why didn’t the Law Society of BC seek such an order for vexatious litigants when they filed their first Petition and then their second amended Petition in the original case before Grauer J.?
Obviously, up to the original hearing before Grauer JSeptember 12, 2011 under BCSC S111171, and thereafter to the end of all appeals at the Supreme Court of Canada July 8, 2015, no mention was ever made by the Law Society of BC that it intended to seek additional orders through counter appeal at that Court. A certificate of taxation was issued to Michael Kleisinger November 5, 2013 so in the Law Societies best case scenario they found grounds that Glen P. Robbins was a vexatious litigant sometime between November 5, 2013 and March 2014.
Deductive Reasoning would adduce a reasoned decision from any competent Independent Judge that it is not possible - IMPOSSIBLE that Glen P. Robbins met the legal criteria of vexatious litigant. It was a Fraud by lawyers, judges and courts from stem to stern.
How was it possible that between the date of Grauer J.’s original decision October 2011, three appeals at BC Court of Appeal, and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada ending 2015 under SCC File No.: 35302 with first order dismissing the leave application in September 2013 and the decision to rush into court March 2014 - there is no letter from the trigger happy LSBC warning Glen P. Robbins?
Here are the applicable Rules from the BC Civil Rules which provide the clear distinction as to when a petition or a Rule 8 Interlocutory Application should be made:
Rule 1-2 - Citation and Application. “Petitions and applications” (ED: shown as two distinct actions): “If an enactment, other than these Supreme Court Civil Rules or the Supreme Court Family Rules, authorizes an application to the court or to a judge: the application must be (a) by Petition under Rule 16-1 or requisition under Rule 17-1, or (b) if the application is for an order other than a final order (ED: A vexatious proceeding order is a final order), by application under Part 8, whether or not the enactment provides for the mode of application.”
Rule 1-3 Object of Rules: “The object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.”
Part 2 - How to Make a Claim, Rule 2-1 - Choosing the Correct Form of Proceeding. “Commencing proceedings by notice of civil claim” (1) “Unless an enactment or these Supreme Court Civil Rules otherwise provide, every proceeding must be started by the filing of a notice of claim under Part 3.”
Rule 2-1 (2) Commencing proceedings by petition or requisition: “To start a proceeding in the following circumstances, a person must file a petition or, if Rule 17-1 applies, a requisition” (a) the person starting the proceeding is the only person who is interested in the claim relief claimed… (ED: Law Society of BC - the only ‘person’ interested (as party)); (b) the proceeding is brought in respect of an application that is authorized by an enactment to be made to the Court.”
The original matter brought by Petition pursuant to Rule 2-1 under BC Supreme Court File No.: S111171 Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins, was heard by Grauer J. September 2011 and involves the Legal Profession Act (BC) section 15. This intention miscarriage of justice brought by the Law Society of BC for vexatious proceedings order relates to a different Statute altogether, the BC Supreme Court Act and Section 18 specifically a Section entitled “vexatious proceedings” (ED: No mention anywhere of vexatious litigant by legal greaseballs). Two different Statutes call for two different Petitions and two different file numbers. To further cover up their fraud on the same courts they are supposed to be responsible for, Hinkson had S111171 court docket number changed to BC 1310. (ED: Intentional circumvention of the Rules for their own benefit).
Remember, the vexatious procedure (litigant) order is a Final Order. The law (Rules are law) is that this matter had to commence by way of Petition, and did not, as an Interlocutory Application cannot produce a Final Order. (ED: Be reminded of the Order Made After Application {fraudulent court filing} by Bankonyi {Cambridge} Ellis Roadburg (BMO) where the Master misinterpreted the nature of this fraudulent order at Conduct of Sale application to be a Final Order in any event of the fraudulent filing). Former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Brian Dickson asserted decades ago that most miscarriage of justice involves irregular or inappropriate filing of documents (ED: ‘Cheating’ by any common language).
Part 8 - (Interlocutory) Application. Rule 8-1 “How to bring and Respond to Applications” “How applications must be brought” (2) “To apply for an order from the court other than at trial or at the hearing of a petition….” (ED: The Reader can see from the BC Court Civil Rules that a Petition and an application though both generally known as ‘applications’--- (this is where the Law Society of BC and Hinkson got ‘quid pro quo’ clever) ---are very different animals. The order applied for by Kleisinger by way of Rule 8 application was by way of ‘other than a petition’, when it is a petition that should have been filed. An Interlocutory application under Rule 8 of the BC Civil Rules can never ever produce a Final Order, only a Petition may do that. Michael Kleisinger and the Law Society of BC intentionally started the vexatious litigant matter as an Interlocutory application and achieved a Final Order from it. Classic miscarriage of justice - but in this case, its was planned (Unlawful Conduct Conspiracy)).
The only warning given to GPR was in 2013 when Michael Kleisinger threatened to seek an order finding GPR in Contempt of Grauer J’s order, if GPR attends to the Court (ED: this warning a threat following the revamped narrative (lies) that LSBC members Bakonyi and Ellis provided to Fenlon J.).
This warning to GPR for Contempt of Court is unrelated to the concept of vexatious proceedings (litigant) issues, and was on its face, evidence of Kleisinger’s capacity to be versatile in assisting Law Society members Bakonyi and Ellis, and to protect all of their lies and court frauds, as there was no lawful rational basis for this Contempt threat in the first place. Why didn’t Kleisinger use that opportunity to communicate the vexatious procedure concerns during the phony Contempt threat? To date there is no evidence whatsoever that Glen P. Robbins was ever involved with a vexatious procedure. (ED: Well at least according to law, maybe not the Law Society of BC (LOL)).
This is important because it demonstrates to anyone choosing to be a fair and rational decision maker, that the Law Society of BC and its Compliance Officer Kleisinger were using unfounded coercion against Glen P. Robbins unrelated to the Vexatious Litigant court scam with Hinkson. Once GPR notified Kleisinger of his intention to sue, following this Contempt of Court ‘courtmail’ that occurred under Fenlon’s slight oversight (ED: From blackmail (LOL)), the vexatious procedure application was pursued on the basis that the Law Society of BC believed my suing them for their orchestrated unlawful activities, constituted a vexatious procedure order. Still, no letter, no warning.
Hooking Hinkson and other BC Supreme Court Judges to BC Human Rights court filings frauds to Glen P. Robbins and intentional “pedophile” defamation (Criminal Defamation).
Vancouver law courts case file 012600 filed May 08, 2001 featuring Glen P. Robbins as plaintiff, was filed and served upon the defendant parties including the ‘Attorney General of BC’ in the days preceding the 2001 BC Provincial Election. This action was initiated as a consequence of the events at BCHRT including the Criminal Defamation of “pedophile” unnecessarily included in Reasons based on erroneous testimony of a woman well over aged 20 referring to Glen Robbins alleged staring. The woman Jennifer Tannis----- daughter of the printing company owned by her father Mitch Tannis and mother Nadine Tannis, and who had just been petitioned in bankruptcy by the BC Supreme Court, and who in Sunsphere v Coast Paper had been discovered to have ripped off $2,000,000 from “Investors”, and who had been outed as using a Ponzi scheme to do so---- was dumber than a rock. Given that the Tribunal Member hearing the case was disabled and in a wheelchair - he was likely sexually impotent as well and not given to ‘correctness’ as demanded by Vavilov (LOL).
Lyndsey Lyster, the lawyer the Minister just appointed to BC Supreme Court Judge is a defendant in the Vancouver lawsuit from 2001 which remains open to Default Judgment once the Hinkson mess is cleaned up, and Glen P. Robbins can get back to his pro bono pro se work suing assholes (ED: like Hinkson).
Chris Hinkson is not included as a Defendant because at the time we did not know his name, but included the events of his perversion of justice in the pleadings (ED: Giving splendid authenticity to the Complaint).
It is GPR’s theory that Chris Hinkson was transferred from the BC Court of Appeal to the BC Supreme Court on purpose in order to use his office, and his control over the courts processes to block Glen P. Robbins from filing that Default Judgment which would have sought significant damages from him, Lyster and McNaughton.
Did the Minister appoint Lyster knowing this? Did Prime Minister Trudeau appoint Lyster knowing this? (ED: If so, it's a call to writers to take these two downtown).
As indicated, Hinkson CJ referred to the Law Society Rule 8 interlocutory application under existing file S111171 (originally Grauer J., Robbins, Lyall, Kleisinger in attendance) as a Petition. The Minister knows well the difference between a Petition and an interlocutory application (ED: or based on lawyers in this matter, maybe he doesn’t). This is a miscarriage of justice in terms of filing, and quite frankly a rush to judgment through abuse of process and abuse of office. At the time of the Law Societies ambush, I was involved in 3 different court applications relating to litigation relating to our house including by inference, and on behalf of my wife and I at the Supreme Court of Canada.
In my response to application on file (they even changed the S111171 file No. to BC1310 assist in the cover up of the chief justice’s and Kleisingers obviously intentional fraud on the court), I wrote at the top of the application in bold lettering that the court action initiated under S111171 was a breach of the rules and a fraud on the courts. The Investigator can read these.
So, Hinkson CJ participated in and made an order for vexatious litigants (without any evidence of such conduct) under a court action number already heard September 12, 2011, appealed through two levels of BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, and knew he was doing it. Hinkson knew he was acting in concert with Kleisinger of the Law Society to abuse court processes (processes and rules he was responsible for the administration of). (ED: Glen P. says there’s likely a better justice system in the Congo-BC Court Chief Justice Bauman provides a directive that court costs may not be paid by bunches of bananas (LOL)).
If the Minister were to perform 15 minutes of Inquiry he would see on its face, this matter should never have been heard as it arrived to the Chief Justice. My position is that Hinkson is a “crooked judge” and acted in concert with Kleisinger, a “crooked lawyer”, intending to use his Office as Chief Justice and Chief Administer of the Courts to bury Glen P. Robbins (Ita Robbins as well) along with their collective right through the use of intentional fraud. I don’t believe at this juncture the word ‘sociopathic’ is untoward in describing the activities of Hinkson, Kleisinger and some of the other lawyers involved in these matters (ED: government civil servants too).
Sociopathic personality defined: “A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour and a lack of conscience.”
With Hinkson’s participation in the 2000 BCHRT court filing fraud against Glen P. Robbins about to be exposed through evidence filed in support of a Default Judgment he knew - someone was going to lose their house, either him or the Robbins family featuring Canada’s newest pro se darlings Glen and Ita Robbins.
The Minister is also fully aware of Hinkson’s order of April 10, 2014 for vexatious litigant against Glen P. Robbins was subsequently used by Ron Bakonyi, law society member in BC Supreme Court matter, H130330, a foreclosure matter involving his wife Ita’s house, where Bakonyi had failed to file a stay of execution order made by Justice Kloegman April 7, 2014, and obtained two court orders during that stay period, specially April 23rd and 24th to deceive the Supreme Court of Canada and obtain a vexatious procedure at that court, stopping any further filing under that court File 35772, and closing off any legal avenue on that SCC file for the Robbins to apply for orders under that file to obtain orders to resist the fraud and ensure their rights to a fair hearing.
For the second time you Mr. Minister, have all of these details in your hands, under your eyes, and have had them for some length of time particularly my wife’s case Ita Robbins versus Cambridge 35772 -- Bakonyi who had filed numerous documents (Replies, Responses) in the Supreme Court of Canada 35772 during the stay period under H130330, and thus had opportunity to rectify his court frauds, but instead used Hinkson’s unlawfully obtained order of vexatious litigant status against Glen P. Robbins under a court file that was ex jurisdiction to that court to file an application to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, Roger Bilodeau, seeking a vexatious litigant order to shut down Ita Robbins appeal there Hinkson’s ill gotten order against Glen P. Robbins (related to S.C.C. 35302 Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC).
Current Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Wagner was the judge who Bilodeau obtained the order not to accept any new documents under that court file. Therefore, Chief Justice Wagner and Mr. Bilodeau are thus inextricably and undeniably linked to court frauds with Ronald Bakonyi performed at BC Supreme Court (H130330) on April 23rd, April 24th, 2014, and in another filing matter May 28th 2013 (or thereabouts), and the filing of an Order Made After Application, an application that never occurred or existed to begin with, along with the corrupted evidence of Hinkson’s vexatious litigant order.
Supreme Court of Canada Justice Brown has read all of the Criminal charges cited from Criminal Code texts circa 2013. These were filed under 36602 Google v Equustek as part of the Intervener application. Although the application wasn’t approved by Justice Brown. The Court docket indicates he has Read all of the material. In my materials to you I have reported on what Read means. It means Justice Brown is aware of crimes committed by other lawyers and likely a Judge (or two). I have pictures of his attendance at UVIC following his Reading my application with one of the Judges in question. The Supreme Court of Canada knows, is fully aware of the criminal or certainly unlawful activities that have occurred.
Again, to the Minister’s point about Judicial Independence, I would ask, and you have the Transcript under your nose, who files the stay of execution order made April 7, 2014 by Justice Kloegman (who retired on July 14, 2014 the date of the home invasion involving the RCMP)?
The Rules of the Court assert that any party involved at hearing may file the order. Usually this is lawyers filing them with proof of the orders made through court clerk notes and tape of proceedings. In affidavit filings, GPR himself listens to the court tape identifying Justice Kloegman making the orders for stay of execution affirmed by court clerk notes.
The Vancouver courthouse had the judges transcript and notes April 9, 2014 two days after the stay of execution order, and one day before Hinkson’s order of April 10, 2014 against Glen P. Robbins, however Bakonyi ‘conned’ the judge into giving him custody of filing the order(s) including the stay of execution order. The transcript also shows Kloegman granting custody to Glen P. Robbins for obtaining new hearing dates (from Kloegman’s adjournment orders).
Kloegman was a Federally appointed Judge in British Columbia who made an order for stay of execution April 7, 2014 and in place until April 30, 2014 (GPR, Ita Robbins et al had sought a “stay of proceedings” based upon the filing of a fraudulent order after application in order to benefit by using this fraudulent order in a subsequent court action to deprive GPR and Ita Robbins). (ED: GPR becomes involved in H130330, the foreclosure matter by virtue of his application to be added as a party dismissed April 23, 2014 during Bakonyi/Cambridges ex parte fraud before Justice Davies, (ED: who just retired), following his granting of an order for police to attend to support an order for selling the property following two Contempt orders against the respondent, an Asian woman. Obviously this is racism against Glen and Ita Robbins simply because they are White).
A dismissal of GPR’s application to be added as a party is one of the three orders obtained by Bakonyi for his client Cambridge (April 23, 2014). The other two include a dismissal of Ita Robbins' appeal of a Masters order for court order sale (April 24, 2014), and a vacant possession order (April 24, 2014). In dismissing the court order sale and providing the vacant possession order, Justice Nathan Smith acts as both a court of appeal and a regular court, which is highly irregular, but Bad Boy Glen P. Robbins says Smith J. knew a miscarriage of justice was underway.
BC Judge Nathan Smith is another Harper appointment, and now Trudeau’s problem, as Escalation is designated to warp speed by Captain Glen P.
Smith J. also signs the vacant possession order in the court, it's not the first time this has occurred, but in the circumstances is certainly untoward, and suspicious. By the end of 2014 there are two vacant possession orders on file, both court frauds.
BC Supreme Court/BC Court of Appeal looks like a Witness Protection Program for Lawyers.
The BC Supreme Court looks more like a Witness Protection Program with the Minister’s addition of Lyndsey Lyster to the Bench. She is also a defendant in a case filed by Glen P. Robbins in 2001. She is accused along with Heather McNaughton also a BC Supreme Court judge (ED: Under protection (LOL)) and Tonie Beharrell, of being involved in a fraud on that Tribunal while they were working there or practicing law. The Government of BC failed to file a defence, and as I indicated to the RCMP Complaint correspondence copied to you, Hinkson moved over to the BC Supreme Court once I notified the Government under Christy Clark, and the Law Society of BC of my intention to obtain Default Judgment on the parties.
Who else is involved with this fraud on the Courts (which can be found by reading not only the final judgement, wokeness or whatever they call it, but other earlier orders) - but none other than Chris Hinkson, in his then role as a private lawyer in a Law Society of BC Complaints case against (my) apparently bi polar lawyer John Motiuk.
The claim against me from BCHRT in which Motiuk acted for GPR as one of the respondents was for staring against 5 female employees, all friends. This staring went on apparently for over a year and one half each and every day, with no witnesses in support, and no record of complaint. Ridiculous Human Rights Tribunal. Troublemakers and nuts.
The representations made by the woman were completely different at different stages of the Complaint process and on their face were easily demolished. For instance, saying that a pivotal person in the allegations worked alongside them (ED: the lead Complainants father Mitch Tannis who along with is wife Nadine Tannis is petitioned into Bankruptcy by Madam Justice Loo in CIBC and VanCity Savings versus Tannis, Tannis and Dauo (1997) where that Judge in her first case refers to Glen P. Robbins as “heroic” - the father and mother should have been the respondents, they were the owners of the operation), then later saying that this person did not work there, an affidavit in Sunsphere v Coast Paper from the father of one of the complainants (Jennifer Tannis who uses the word pedophile), and the owner (who ought to have been respondent) saying he never saw anything). (ED: Current BC Justice Arne Silverstein (Silverstein - Silverstein ‘is that a French surname’? (LOL) represented Coast Paper - and lost badly to Glen P. Robbins in that case. In that case file sits right now the Affidavit of Mitch Tannis the father of lead Complainant Jennifer Tannis indicating that he never saw any untoward conduct by Glen P. Robbins in the BCHRT staring stupidity).
So, GPR’s lawyer Motiuk applied to the Tribunal to have the hearings of each of the complainants severed. (ED: This way, the girls cannot hear each other's stories to keep their lies straight). Frankly, these adult women were not the sharpest knives in the drawer. A landmark case (no case had five women involved, usually one on one) was going to be destroyed by GPR, and GPR was going to handle the examination of the girls, not Motiuk. (ED: Glen Robbins had learned to moonwalk like Michael Jackson just for the court case ‘beatings’ he was intending to apply to the lady liars and their staring fraud in BC’s freak show BCHRT - “Dude looks like a Lady” - Arrowsmith).
The process and the complaints would have been turned into a sideshow. Of 12-15 other employees including women working every day with the Complainants, NONE showed up to testify in support of the five very sick women. In fact one of the Complainants Sara Clemente was too sick to testify. When GPR demanded an opportunity to examine Clemente at another hearing, less than one year later - he was denied the opportunity to confront his accuser.
BCHRT goes into a year and one half adjournment immediately after Motiuk filed the Motion to sever complaints, at Glen P. Robbins instruction. GPR is about to crush these lying ass women and expose their lies. His plan is to ask for 10 days Hearing and prosecute the women as one would people accused of a crime. Unbeknownst to GPR during this adjournment period, lawyer Motiuk has been accused by another unrelated client, of using monies in trust. He is accused by the Law Society of BC and Chris Hinkson is retained by him (ED: who paid Motiuk’s legal bills to Chris Hinkson?). (ED: For the police, there are 8 boxes of material involving the Law Society case against my lawyer Motiuk, at Law Society headquarters - as ordered by the Privacy Commissioner. If Hinkson is the only lawyer representing Motiuk through the same period that Motiuk represented Glen P. Robbins, then we have our dirty lawyer--consistent with the claims made in defendant pleadings).
Eventually, the BCHRT, wishing to raise the subject of severing the women’s testimony in GPR’s application, files its own motion for arguments when the proper thing to have done would be to raise the adjourned application served on the Defendants to be heard. GPR’s application has never been heard. Sound familiar?
At law, the BCHRT should have accepted my original Application to sever the lying ladies (“LL”) and the arguments therein (adjourned) and sought a response to that Application from the petitioners. My own lawyer, Motiuk who we know was a very sick man, and had not disclosed to GPR, neglected his duties to his client, based on the coercion then Law Society member Chris Hinkson’s put upon him as Hinkson had the power over Motiuk. Motiuk cried when he informed Glen P. Robbins he had betrayed him (ED: Like crazy Judas), and how his Law Society lawyer (Hinkson) had pressured him into perverting the course of justice to protect himself against the Law Society complaint of taking a client’s monies from trust. The BCHRT’s actions to ignore GPR’s original application and the evidence in support to sever the Lyin Five as if it never occurred is not correct administration of the Rules of Procedure. The unilateral Motion of BCHRT to ignore the adjourned application of Glen P. Robbins and invited submissions from opposing parties, provided Hinkson with his opportunity to squeeze Hinkson off the case.
Just as Independent Justice Kloegman (retired) order of April 7, 2014 for stay of execution until April 30, 2014 has not been filed with the Court in over 7 years, Glen P. Robbins' application to sever the hearings of the five women who were stared at apparently 20,000 times before filing a complaint. For laughs, the writer affirms that at this time in BC history advocacy history the BC Human Rights Tribunal Commissioner was an Asian Lesbian woman - with a crew cut - bully dyke - you know. Good White men were being crucified at the stake Human Rights insanity in this lawyer cesspool referred to as the BC Human Rights Tribunal. It likely cost Glen P. Robbins upwards of $100 million a number supported by Canada Revenue Agency audits and court filed (with affidavit) Business Plans.
GPR’s lawyer Motiuk threw the case, but was apparently mentally ill when he did this. (Motiuk died in 2010). In the Law Society of BC case against Mr. Motiuk here, Chris Hinkson was his attorney. Motiuk was found by two different psychiatrists to be bi polar and off his medication at the time he was in breach of the Law Society Rules - at the same time he was Glen P. Robbins lawyer (ED: GPR is speculated to be the next Leader of the BC Bad Boy Party {anyone can be a member}. This means Chris Hinkson knew Motiuk was, for lack of a better word - ‘crazy’ - and in trouble with the Law Society - and offered him a way out. All Motiuk had to do was not tell his client (GPR) about the demand for arguments on the subject of severing the Complainants.
Why weren’t all of John Motiuk’s clients informed that their lawyer was not competent to represent them? Ita Robbins went to BC Court of Appeal involving an MVA case during this period as well, why wasn’t she informed and given the opportunity to get new counsel?
Minister, your new Judge Lyster knew what Hinkson had done. She participated in the BCHRT scheme of document filing manipulation prejudicial to Glen P. Robbins getting a fair hearing. She knew GPR’s lawyer Motiuk was sick, and likely, like Hinkson, played a part in the overall scheme as lawyer for the Complainants, along with Tonie Beharall, Heather McNaughton and Chris Hinkson to pervert the course of justice.
For the Reader’s interest, once BC Liberal Attorney General (ED: BC’s Elephant Man) Geoff Plant was informed of his mistake, Glen and Ita Robbins were coincidentally audited by Revenue Canada in reassessments totaling $450,000 (2004) later reduced to zero (2008) for all of them. For years of fighting bogus CRA claims IMMEDIATELY following an errant letter (mistake) from BC’s Attorney General. Over 1,000 hours from Glen P. Robbins.
Glen P. Robbins publishing business was audited at Canada Revenue Agency earning 2.2 million per year. His business plan produced by an MBA anticipated earning 5-10 million per year. GPR has lost tens of millions of dollars from my hard work in free enterprise to a group of stupid and lazy judges/lawyers who, on merit, are no equal of Glen P. Robbins including, in matters of law.
Again, Geoff Plant (2004) would write to GPR 2004 indicating the government had settled its claim with me over the fiasco at BCHRT (ED: featuring the All Girls Bullshitter Band as petitioners (LOL) when in fact it had not, and has not).
The RCMP Investigator could determine all these facts to be true in under 2 hours by reviewing the lawsuit filed in March 2001 and reviewing both the BCHRT Motion for arguments decision of Judy Parrack and the final ex parte decision of that body. I would also like to see the police go through the 8 boxes the Law Society of BC is hiding involving my former lawyer and Chris Hinkson, his lawyer as part of the overlap. (ED: Cops going after lawyers and Judges, come on it's about time isn’t it?)
Currently, the RCMP are being ripped to shreds at the Cullen Commission, wouldn’t the Commissioner like to attend a news conference, dump a few million on Glen P. Robbins and the Robbins family, look the hero, and then turn the attention of the public on problems with lawyers and courts. Who won’t believe this?
Hinkson had clear and unmistakable motive for joining Michael Kleisinger and Jewish lawyer Ron Bakonyi (ED: the ethnic point is not intended to be mean, but rather provide for the permitting of later evidence, should it be necessary of Jewish groups being expelled from over a hundred different authorities for ignoring local laws and rules and practicing their own including usury). Glen P. Robbins filing an application for Default Judgment from the undefended 2001 action at Vancouver law courts was going to expose the major administrative fraud undertaken by Hinkson, Lyster, Beharell, and McNaughton as lawyers and BCHRT Commissioner. Now three of these ‘gangsters’ are judges. (ED: lawyer witness protection (LOL)).
Like murder and rape, the experts suggest once a person engages in such activity, they get a hankering for it and will often do it again. Hinkson was crooked as a lawyer, and now is caught being crooked as a judge. I would conclude crooked gets easier once you do it once, lawyer, judge, doctor, or Blacksmith. (ED: This is for Ms. Gauthier of the Department of Justice).
The filing of the litigation in 2001 protects the Court process in the interests of Time Limitations. (ED: better move Lyster to the BC Court of Appeal (LOL)).
So Minister, this Lyster appointment by you with no apparent review by the Federal government ultimately responsible for her (ED: you should have found her name as a Defendant in the case, and thereafter investigated the details). What quality of judge is being produced with no transparency to the public and without even a cursory review of that history. Facebook & Twitter does better with its reviews and they both stink at the job. Lyster remains a defendant in an ongoing lawsuit for rigging court processes along with Tonie Beharell, Heather McNaughton and Chris Hinkson. Now all these confederates but one are BC Supreme Court Justices. Ironic at the very best. Without full knowledge of the type or quality of Judges the Public is being exposed to what do you expect? At this point in time, perhaps electing Judges will become necessary, or at least have LSBC members vote them in.
Hinkson and Glen P. Robbins have history. Given his actions and conduct under S111171 (including making orders that any lawyer hired by GPR must also file documents on a leave basis). Hinkson should be investigated under the basis of the Judges Act 63(1) (b), (c) , and (d) without any doubt.
Remember, Ita Robbins has substantial money remaining in Court, notwithstanding all of these unlawful activities by Officers of the Court. Right in front of you Mr. Minister, the 2019 application to the BC Supreme Court for a filing of stay of execution (along with myself - - and my affidavit) for release of those funds, and other orders. Ita (and I) attempted to file the stay of execution order (and others) in late 2019, as well as orders for the monies in court, but were rejected by the Court as not being in compliance with Hinkson.
As Minister of Justice, you should be filing Kloegman J.’s stay of execution order. She was a Federally appointed Justice (of some reputation ruling on the Bush “W” case. Your office is responsible. As you can also see, the fraud on the court, perversion of court processes of Bakonyi and Ellis (on behalf of BMO) - referenced the Order Made After Application was provided to your predecessor Jody Wilson Raybould. The Minister’s Office at that time could have looked up the case, witnessed the filing of that Order and seen that there was no Application to begin with. The purpose of this fraud was intended to make a procedural order appear down the line as a substantive one.
All you have to do Mr. Minister is to file the Order Made by Kloegman for stay of execution, ensure with BCAG’s that all necessary remedies occur, and move swiftly to compensation. If an order made by a so-called Independent Judge is ignored by any person including particularly a lawyer (and most particularly another Judge) that is Contempt of Court. Right now, both the BC Supreme Court, BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada are in Contempt of Kloegman’s order of April 7, 2014.
Glen P. Robbins Per - Ita Robbins
-30- “Transparency”
Copies: Brenda Lucki (RCMP) Supreme Court of Canada (Letter Form)

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