Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Breaking News! June 2021 - Criminal charges sought against RCMP/Law Society MBRs in home invasion
  Jun 21, 2021

(original worknotes) May 29, 2021 provided by gmail @ ‘“Heads Up” & For Transparency in the Public Interest (“TPI”)
Glen Robbins Ita Robbins British Columbia
(MIchael O’Malley, National Public Complaints Directorate, 73 Leikin Drive, Mailstop #47, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OR2)
Brenda Lucki, “In Personam” RCMP National Headquarters Building, 73 Leikin Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OR2
Bill Blair MP, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2263 Kingston Road, Scarborough, Ontario M1N 1T8 Fax: 1-416-261-5268
Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington, Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OJ1 Attention: Chief Justice Wagner.
RE: Public Complaints Against the RCMP Robbins File #: CRCC PC-2021-1217, RCMP File No: CCM 21-001345 - Letter May 25th, 2021 AND TO Letter from Coquitlam RCMP detachment Sgt. Bryon Yusyk under Coq File No.: - 2021-12374 and comments thereto.
*A June 11, 2021 addition to the raw material provided to the State Actor recipients. Chief Justice Wagner is included because, when he was a regular Judge at the Supreme Court of Canada, he made the vexatious procedure order under S.C.C. docket 35772, Ita Robbins versus Cambridge Mortgage.
As we all know, this order was made after an apparent review by then Wagner J of evidence that did not include a Stay of Execution order made by BC Supreme Court Justice Kloegman J. April 14, 2014. Bakonyi, the lawyer for the respondent Cambridge Mortgage, had at least two opportunities in response/reply submissions to correct his fraud, which, included filing evidence of three court orders obtained illegally by this crook during the stay of execution on April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014, including a fraudulent vacant possession order that may or may not have induced the RCMP to attend to the state sanctioned home invasion on July 14, 2014 at Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam BC. The Stay of Execution order and transcript is provided to all parties, inside the Binder of the Complaint against the Judges, (March 27, 2021) reexamined in Letter Form communications to both Canada’s AG, British Columbia’s AG, BC’s Solicitor General, Canada’s Minister of Emergency Preparedness (Sol General), and to other parties including Benchers of both provincial law societies involved in the matter.
You can see in my Complaint against the Judges Binder that Chief Justice Wagner was notified as “Attention to”: the Executive Director was appropriately the recipient, (contrary to what McDonald says). His honour is implicated mightily in the crime. Whether unwittingly (or not) he made the order under 35772 that shut down the file, and provided safe harbour to the legal fraudsters: Ron Bakonyi (Cambridge), Robert Ellis (BMO Bank), Michael Kleisinger of the Law Society of British Columbia, and B.C. Supreme Court Justice Chris Hinkson. I also note that Roger Bilodeau, a public servant acting as S.C.C. The Registrar precipitated the getting of the Order. Mr. Bilodeau operates under Ontario’s Public Service Act, but under S.C.C. Rules are lawfully considered a Judge.
I would note that Suzanne Cote, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the first person in Canadian legal history to be named a Judge of the highest court without ever having been a judge of a Superior Court. This appointment occurred following rejection of Harper nominee for the Supreme Court of Canada, Nardon J., and a national spat between the Prime Minister and Chief Justice at the time Beverley McLachlin.
The original Complaint to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commissioner for the RCMP also included RCMP Reference Number R2021-000306. I am sure the original Complaints Commissioner may, may, may have been well intended making the original offer to my wife and I to proceed with the Complaint in the first place. As this response notes, this original complaint went off the rails pretty quickly. A proper outline of the likely events in the process should be part of the process orientation on the front end. This looks like a make it up as you process. Brenda Lucki gets the communication now In Personam.
NOW- BIG BREAKING NEWS - British Columbia Trial Lawyers have sued the BC NDP government for $900 million, monies the Trial Lawyers say has been lost to personal injury victims (including $300 million in legal fees), when the Horgan government moved to a No Fault Insurance scheme for B.C. Crown Corporation, I.C.B.C.. The entire Trial Lawyers argument is based on the Constitution which alleges superior court judges in the provinces are Independent. That’s the nine hundred million dollar argument for $300 million in legal fees for Trial Lawyers (and others).
Yet, when Ita Robbins, her husband and another go to file the order of Stay of Execution made by Kloegman J. on April 7, 2014, they are not permitted to do it, even though the Rules provide that any party to the matter may file orders. (ED: I would note for detail that the ‘other’ showed up to the matter before Kloegman J.) Glen P. Robbins has publicly implicated Hinkson in rigging the courts administration to produce an unlawfully obtained order of vexatious litigant against GPR in order to assist Bakonyi with his fraud on the Supreme Court of Canada including Chief Justice Wagner and Registrar Roger Bilodeau. His silence, and the silence of the others cannot reasonably be explained through judicial independence over the guarantee of a job, income and pension(s) and independence over administration.
Ita and Glen Robbins ‘own’ the issue of Independence now. The State can no longer lay any claim to this in the midst of this criminal enterprise by State and sub State actors. We are the only actors in this scenario who acted independently, including following the rules of court and the law. Independence of the Judiciary matters when you are operating in the legal system, lawyers, judges and such. However Independence of the Judiciary does NOT apparently matter if you are an ordinary person. The B.C. The Trial Lawyers Association argument has no merit until the Ita Robbins et al matter is resolved. This is occurring right in front of many sets of eyes. Now, the process of escalation has stitched persons at the highest level of law and the courts together in a fraud on Ita and Glen P. Robbins, andt “The Court” as well. Does access to justice and Independence of the Judiciary depend upon a member of the Law Society of BC being retained?
(I would add in circumstances of resolution involving compensation, a professional will be involved).
Canada’s Department of Justice file on The Judiciary asserts the principle of judicial independence to have three components: security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence. I don’t believe this last component includes rigging the administration of the court processes in order to defraud persons out of their property as we accuse Hinkson CJ to have done in conjunction with Michael Kleisinger, an old law partner, and Compliance Officer with the Law Society of BC.
The prime evidence that Wagner J. must have used to determine the order to close the file were copies under affidavit of orders obtained by Bakonyi for Cambridge during the Stay of Execution Order made April 7, 2014 as well as the order of vexatious litigant made by Hinkson for Kleisinger who went after it in the first place to assist Bakonyi with his massive and unprecedented fraud upon Ita Robbins to steal her home and lifelong possessions. I would note that the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court decision(s) have the same authority as a court of appeal and Glen Robbins (Ita Robbins) have direct access to the Supreme Court of Canada as a consequence. I would note further, that when Cambridge applied for another vexatious litigant order against GPR at BC Court of Appeal, it was dismissed.
Please find enclosed my May 29, 2021 response to Superintendent Michael O’Malley relating to this letter to my wife and I. Note in the response provided I suggest the RCMP, who had contacted us about the Complaint (ED: Control?) at our ‘pro se legal office’ in Deer Lake, Burnaby BC (the legal address for existing Supreme Court of Canada activities including: Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage 35772, Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of BC 35302, and Glen P. Robbins (“GPR”) Intervenor application under case file 36602 Google v Equustek, a case where GPR filed document evidence of the criminal offences of the lawyers, (judges) and more particularly the RCMP) should continue to communicate the complaint in hard copy letter to that address for continuity (the style of cause in a legal matter doesn’t change through the chain of complaint).
Prior to dealing with the aforementioned response to Superintendent Michael O’Malley, I would like to comment on another letter received, subsequent to the O’Malley letter. As referenced, this letter is from Sgt. Bryan Yuzyk Professional Standards Unit, RCMP Coquitlam detachment under Coquitlam RCMP File # -2021-12374 including an introduction of himself with his pdf letter to my wife and I attached. I have spoken with my wife and she would prefer not to receive these updates by email any further, fearing as I do, that the RCMP is not acting in good faith in this process and hopes to use it to influence my wife who is less familiar with the events than I.
The letter of Sgt. Yuzyk was received June 4, 2021 through email, and occurred prior to the prospective uploading of worknotes of the response to Superintendent O’Malley at our formal communication method at (through communication to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, who like it or not, is hooked to these Complaints), as well as to our pursuit of financial compensation and to our further pursuit of criminal charges against persons including those RCMP members involved in the criminal/unlawful activity at our home in Coquitlam BC on July 14, 2014).
I note the worknotes, also sent to relevant Federal Liberal Minister and former Toronto City Police Chief Bill Blair, featured our ‘intra process’ complaint of not communicating letters to our ‘pro se’ legal address. It should be noted that the RCMP contacted us at that address through ordinary mail. Mr. Yuzyk’s not including our address in his correspondence, would appear to ignore the worknotes heads up (ED: good faith/bad faith test). I also note from worknotes that I was looking for another investigation to occur relating to the criminal conduct of the RCMP. (ED: Police cannot investigate themselves well, Coquitlam RCMP investigating criminal allegations about Coquitlam RCMP is on its face likely not a good idea).
The formal communication through more conventional service of documents, of the material uploaded and available (without signatures) through the email communication inclusive of this counter investigation of RCMP investigative process including responses to both Sup. O’Malley and Sgt. Yuzyk will occur over the next two weeks. Superintendent O’Malley’s letter was provided to my wife and I just over a week ago from his Office at 73 Leiken Drive, Ottawa Ontario, the same office as Brendi Lucki who I include now in her personal name. Supervisor O’Malley indicated that either he or someone else would be doing the investigation. A reasonable person might assume from that statement that the investigation would be undertaken in Ottawa, Ontario where the head offices for the RCMP are, and the other person would be of a senior position like O’Malley, a Superintendent.
The vast majority of Canadians would agree with me here, or at least, as we introduce Sgt. Yuzyk of Coquitlam RCMP detachment - that the other person promised by O’Malley would not be any less one in a Supervisor role. Further, to make O’Malley’s representation in one letter and then transfer the complaint to Coquitlam RCMP, when O’Malley, Lucki and Blair know a criminal complaint is being made about members of that Coquitlam RCMP, looks and smells like more bad faith by the State. Any comment I might have made about suspending any RCMP bad faith is hereby revoked.
In Mr. Yuzyk’s email the ‘lower classified’ than Sgt. Yuzyk writes: “Good afternoon Mr. Glen Robbins and Mrs. Ita Robbins. Please find enclosed your monthly update letter.” ….”I expect the investigator to commence within this reporting period, at which point myself or another investigator will reach out to you.” This is exactly the same promise made by Sup. O’Malley who indicated he or another investigator. Did Sup. O’Malley intend that to mean, another investigator at RCMP Coquitlam who is a Sgt.? Given the (further) conduct of the investigating officers to date, should my wife and I anticipate that Sgt. Yuzyk will appoint an Intake Officer or perhaps a custodian from Coquitlam City Hall to investigate the criminal aspect of this case?
In the pdf attachment of Sgt. Yuzyk writes: “Please find enclosed your monthly update letter….(P)ursuant to section 45.63 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.” Sgt. Yuzyk continues: “This letter is in reference to a complaint made by Mr. Glen Robbins and Mrs. Robbins regarding the conduct of Constable Blakeman, Constable Cavanaugh, and an unidentified member of the RCMP.”
There is no ‘unidentified member of the RCMP’. This is not true. What is suspicious about this statement is that our Complaint indicated we did not know the names of the Officers. Sgt. Yuzyk advises us of their names. These were the two RCMP Officers who participated in the criminal activities outlined in my worknotes provided as ‘heads up’ (ED: My advisors describe them as bait).
The unidentified member of the RCMP tends to give the impression that 3 RCMP attended with bailiffs to participate in the illegal fraud of the taking of property. In fact, I believe Mr. Yuzyk is attempting to hide the senior officer's name. It is that senior office who is the unidentified member in question. As my worknotes provided by gmail, and this formal Letter indicate, we believe the RCMP participated in criminal activity, and did so knowingly. The criminal provisions attach to a senior officer. As we indicated in our original information and herein, we believe the senior officer who sent RCMP members Blakeman and Cavanaugh on their criminal mission, retired soon thereafter.
This goes to underlying intent arguments, which appear to me from Mr. Yuzyk’s letter to be an effort to hide that senior officer who I suggested may have a francophone name like ‘Lafleur’. I expect that this was wilful on Mr. Yuzyk’s part.
The fact that Mr. Yuzyk disclosed the names of the two RCMP Officers, but does not include the senior officer involved information which he must also know, and then attempts to spin the “unidentified officer” is, in my opinion, an exercise in bad faith by the RCMP in context, and ought to be considered against RCMP known history of omission in court claims. Mr. O’Malley’s representation that he, an RCMP Supervisor in Ottawa ‘or another person’ presumes that another Supervisor would be conducting the investigation. In and of itself this statement, and the transfer to Coquitlam RCMP, and a Sgt. there - actually looks like a bit of con.
(ED: Glen P. Robbins has a legal DECLARATION from Madame Justice Saunders of BC Court of Appeal that he is an “Officious Bystander”. The Officious Bystander test relates to inferences in contract law. The term goes back hundreds of years. It is said the test is to involve those circumstances where a contract term is so obvious “it goes without saying”. Officious Bystander designations are related to Business efficacy relating to the power to get results. Hence any term in a contract can only be implied into that contract if it provides business efficacy to the contract “to avoid such a failure of consideration that the parties cannot as reasonable men have intended”).
As I apply the LEGAL DECLARATION made to this case, I do not believe reasonable businessmen or businesswomen, or reasonable people anywhere would be satisfied with what has transpired to date in this RCMP Complaint process on behalf of my wife Ita and I.
To the O’Malley response:
Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2021 regarding the above captioned. I note this letter was gmailed to me, at the same time as I was communicating both the worknotes and public disclosure at www.robbins sce, my multi million dollar data site. At that time, 14.2 pages of 40 worknotes had been transmitted already to this gmail group, and that information was then posted online. The remainder of those worknotes will be transmitted to site, and as referenced, that material will be printed off, bound and delivered by mail to the Attorney Generals of Canada and British Columbia and other parties including Commissioner Lucki, Minister Blair, the Supreme Court of Canada (As Letter Form communication provided under the S.C.C. Rules) along with others.
I will fire up a demand from Vancouver Chair of City Police Mayor Kennedy Stewart to investigate the criminal activities of the lawyers (judges) Bailiffs and their enforcement arm (the nation of Bailiff LOL), the RCMP. I would note that the Vancouver Police and more particularly the Coquitlam RCMP did a horrific job on the investigation relating to the Picton murder of prostitutes in Port Coquitlam, BC the constituency of current BC Solicitor General Mike Farnworth.
In the original letter from the Complaints Commissioner affirming an investigation was to occur, a USB port was provided apparently with my Complaint therein. In these contentious circumstances I have no interest in this, and would ask that you send any further material by ‘hard copy’ in the traditional way. Also, in your letter you reference “discussions” will be held. If discussions mean “IN WRITING” then fine, again, so long as hard copy is provided to the address (only). No discussions will be held over the telephone at any time.
I note in your letter, my wife who lost millions due to RCMP criminal activity and negligence was omitted. She is a Complainant as well. In your hard copy letter (I will trash the gmail) please properly amend the letter to include my wife Ita Robbins, and for the record, please underline this amendment in red ink as one might do in amending a court document. This demand relates to potential later arguments relating to Intent and good/bad faith issues.
Lastly, on this administrative matter be advised that this response will be transmitted to “multi million dollar data centre” ® as a separate entry to the letters provided to both levels of government concerning the criminally responsible judges Chris Hinkson and Lauri Anne Fenlon. I will not be acknowledging these as Judges in correspondence, nor including titular references such as Honourable.
In your letter (for our Readers) you write: “I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence sent to the Commissioner on April 19, 2021. It was forwarded to my attention and I am responding on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).” “I confirm that the RCMP received the Complaint Form on April 29, 2012 from the Civilian Review and Complaint Commissioner for the RCMP (CRCC). Your public complaint was sent to the RCMP Professional Responsibility Unit in British Columbia for investigation. Once an investigator has been assigned, you will be contacted to discuss your complaint and the investigation…”
This is my response to this letter Mr. Superintendent, and to the Commissioner, and to Minister responsible for Public Safety Bill Blari on the basis that the RCMP conduct is one thing to investigate, however these members and senior officer(s) are in fact persons involved in a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada. They committed offences against the Crown (against us) as the provisions I have provided attest. Further, a textual reading of those provisions already reveal (respectively) both the Commissioner and yourself become enmeshed as persons aiding and abetting these criminal activities involving the RCMP, Consolidated Bailiff, Law Society of BC member Ronald Bakonyi, Ellis Roadburg, Michael Kleisinger (LSBC), Chris Hinkson and Lauri Anne Fenlon.
I say this with some emphasis because the RCMP has a bad reputation for delay in these Investigations. (ED: Appears to compete with the second coming of Jesus Christ). I would suggest that the Quebec Police be considered for the criminal investigation in part because their civil law is different and includes provisions for damages on the basis of “morality”, which is a word used in the Criminal Code provisions I have provided to you.
This exception to section 19 is permitted, as stated in the Supreme Court of Canada Jorgensen case, to ensure “that the morally blameless are not made criminally responsible for their actions.”
Section 19 - Ignorance and the Law: Episode 21 of the Ideablawg...on the Criminal Code of Canada (April 13, 2014). “Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence.” “In fact, the section does not set out a defence but seems to take away a defence, the one of -I-did_not-Know-that-was-a-crime-kind of defence. We know that a mistake of fact is an excuse, which if accepted goes to the mens rea or criminal intention required…” “Once laws were codified and therefore written down for all to see, this idea, that a breach of the law cannot be excused through lack of knowledge.” “One reason for this presumption is to ensure that people did not become a law unto themselves.”
…(T)here is a defence known as a mistake of law, which I submit is not exactly an ignorance of the law excuse, and has found only limited success in the criminal law arena.” “This defence, which has its origins in the regulatory context, is a form of due diligence, which exonerates an accused who reasonably relies upon an erroneous legal opinion or relies upon incorrect advice from an official responsible for that party's area of law. So, the defence does not revolve around a complete failure to inform but around a mistaken but reasonable belief in the interpretation of the law. This exception to section 19 is permitted, as stated in the Supreme Court of Canada Jorgensen case, to ensure “that the morally blameless are not made criminally responsible for their actions.”
(T)hen Chief Justice Lamer, in the McIntosh case, and on behalf of a majority of that court - had this to say on the subject: “Under s.19 of the Criminal Code, ignorance of the law is no excuse to criminal liability. Our criminal justice system presumes that everyone knows the law.” (ED: One would sure think the RCMP (Police) would know the Criminal Code and other laws that might affect their professional work. {ED: Love my country but this is Canada nothing surprises me}.
From “Canada Justice Laws Website” “Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) Part 1 - Parties to Offences (continued) “Person counselling offence”: “22(1) where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence (ED: The ‘presumption’ here is that initially the private for profit Bailiff company “Consolidated” telephoned the RCMP. The Coquitlam RCMP would have a record of this and which senior officer dispatched the male and female officers to Honeysuckle Lane), and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.”
(ED: So, knowing that Ron Bakonyi, the lawyer for Cambridge Mortgage and Peet and Cowan Financial, contracted with Consolidated Bailiff of Burnaby to Enforce an Order that Bakonyi obtained through a wilful Criminal Contempt of the Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. (H130330) April 7, 2014, and knowing that Consolidated could not legally ‘contract’ with the RCMP, all of these parties have committed a criminal offence, as the RCMP is responsible for Consolidated as if were Consolidated and Consolidated is responsible for Bakonyi/Cambridge (Ellis/BMO) as if it were them. The Bailiffs connected the RCMP to all of Bakonyi and Cambridge’s criminal offences as if it were them unless the RCMP can find a way out. Let’s see).
(3) “Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.” “For purposes of this Act, counsel includes procure, solicit or incite.”
“Offences of negligence-organization”
(ED: Remember Readers, these legal provisions relate to every common citizen. In this case we are dealing with the RCMP operating under specific federal legislation and regulation. There is no possible way out for the RCMP Senior Officer and two Officers who attended to the State sanctioned home invasion at the Robbins property and, not to distract, we believe we have a revenge motive in our pocket - more on that later).
22.1 “In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is party to an offence is (a) acting within the scope of their authority (i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence (ED: The Senior Officer at Coquitlam detachment - two police officers who attended) or (ii) two or more of its representatives is a party to the offence or (ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only representative, that representative would have been party to the offence; and (b) the senior office who is responsible for the aspect of the organizations’ activities that is relevant to the offense departs - or the senior officers, collectively depart - markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence” (ED: the important message here is that the activity must depart markedly from ‘the standard of care --could reasonably have been expected’. To wit: an RCMP Officer and Senior Officer breaching the Criminal Code they are charged with upholding is not going to rise to a standard of care).
“Other offences organizations”
22.2 “In respect of an offence that requires the prosecutor to prove...other than negligence-an organization is party to an offence if, within the intent at least in part to benefit the organization, one of its senior officer (a) acting within the scope of their authority, is a party to an offence: (b) having the mental state required to be a party to the offence and only within the scope of their authority, directs the work of other representatives of the organization so that they do act or make the omission specified in the offence; or (c) knowing that a representative of the organization is or is about to be a party to the offence, does not take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence.” (ED: At this juncture, we caution the Investigator, the Commissioner and other parties to understand that this Section of the Criminal Code is ongoing and includes them as well {a little good faith insurance).
“Accessory after the fact”
23 (1) “An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, confronts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.” (ED: We interpret escape to mean escape prosecution of consequences of committing an offence).
24 (1) “Every one who, having intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.” (ED: This may or may not be applicable in this matter other than to close out hope of any escape for the RCMP & remember as well that “Intent” under the Criminal Code is not considered the same way that ordinary people might interpret it).
“Question of law”
(2) “The question whether an act omission by the person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit an offence, is a question of law.” (ED: IS NOT a question of law for the RCMP members and senior officers involved in these crimes).
“Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law”
25 (1) “Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of law (a) as a private person, (b) as a peace officer or public officer, (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or (d) by virtue of his office, is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what is required…” (ED: “Reasonable grounds” is the standard, the RCMP have no professional standard anywhere in this claim). (2) “Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process…, that person or any person who assists him, if that person acting in good faith, is justified in executing the process...notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective.” (ED: I don’t know to what extent this subsection applies, although the process was defective because of the fraud on the Robbins and the BC Courts and Supreme Court of Canada by Bakonyi and Cambridge and BMO and Ellis, however the onus of proving good faith is always on the State and the RCMP cannot do it because it ignored its own Legislation and Regulations, and the applicable provincial legislation (Police Act, Bailiff Act. The Bailiff Act compels the Bailiff to get court orders to bring in Police or other authority. A private bailiff and the RCMP felt this was professional? - just crazy).
“When Not Protected”
“Competent authority means, with respect to a public officer or a senior official, (a) in the case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; (b) in the case of a police service constituted under the laws of a province, the Minister responsible for policing in the province, personally; (c) in the case of any other pubic officer or senior official, the Minister who has responsibility for the Act of Parliament that the officer or official has the power to enforce.”
“It is in the public interest to ensure that public officers may effectively carry out their law enforcement duties in accordance with the rule of law and, to that end, to expressly recognize in law a justification for public officers and other persons acting at their direction to commit acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences.” (ED: Remember Glen P. Robbins knows the law when the police arrive - asks the RCMP Officers and Bailiffs to leave, obtains legal advice (due diligence) and then rejects a negotiated settlement with the lawyer Bakonyi who says the Bailiffs and RCMP will be pulled if Ita Robbins agrees to drop her conduct of sale matter. Glen P. Robbins demands both RCMP and Consolidated contact senior people or lawyers. At this point if the RCMP wasn’t as morally to blame as the Bailiffs, the lawyers, or others accused, they were at this point and continue to be going forward).
“Justification for acts or omission”
(8) “A public officer is justified in committing an act or omission - or in directing the commission of an act or omission under subsection (10) - that would otherwise constitute an offence if the public officer (a) is engaged in the investigation of an offence under, or the enforcement of, an Act of Parliament or i the investigation of criminal activity,.. (ED: Only chance for RCMP - what Act of Parliament is being enforced? Where is the criminal activity?)... and (c) believes on reasonable grounds that the commission of the act or omission, as compared to the nature of the offence or criminal activity being investigated, is reasonable or proportional in the circumstances, having regard to such matters as the nature of the act or omission, the nature of the investigation and the reasonable availability of other means for carrying out the public officer’s enforcement duties (ED: Like hey Bailiffs no can do without you Bailiffs operating under the Bailiff Act (B.C.) go get a court order).
“Requirements for certain acts”
(9) “No public officer is justified in committing an act or omission that would constitute an offence and that would otherwise constitute an offence and that would be likely to result in the loss of or serious damage to property….unless…, he or she (a) is personally authorized in writing.” (ED: RCMP are dead in the water here folks).
“Limitation” (11) “Nothing in this section justifies (a) the wilful attempt in any manner to obstruct, pervert...the course of justice.” (ED: No legitimate legal way out for RCMP).
“Forgery and Offences Resembling Forgery” 366 (1) “Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it be false, with intent (a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine to the prejudice of any one whether with Canada or not, or (b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.” (ED: This Criminal Code Section would apply to Cambridge Mortgage and its lawyer Ron Bakonyi, as well as BMO Bank of Montreal and its lawyer Ellis Roadburg. The Order Made After Application is a forgery because no application was ever made, no evidence adduced etc. This forgery was filed at the end of May 2013 about 3 weeks following the hearing of the Petition in Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins et al. This means that both lawyers Bakonyi and Ellis would have to agree to the Form of the document, sign etc.. What benefit did Cambridge and BMO and their lawyers receive, which cements this action as a breach of the Criminal Code? The answer is that in so doing they were able to trick a BC Master (who cannot make a final order) make a final order on the basis that Glen P. Robbins was banned from speaking in Court based on the gross forgery of the substantive order the forged document presumes, when no substantive order was ever produced on the subject of right of audience unrelated to the only subject before the court, the petition for foreclosure. (ED: What was lost? Millions in property).
“When forgery complete” (3) “Forgery is complete as soon as a document is made with the knowledge and intent referred to in subsection (1).” (ED: The Order Made After Application {where no application was made nor hearing occurring} is also a fraud on the BC Courts. The Court Registry is under the authority of the BC Attorney General. BC Government Union employees manage the Registry, and there is a contract in place between the Offices of the Chief Justices, and the BC Attorney General. Bakonyi and Ellis committed a criminal offence against the BC Government including a Master of the BC Supreme Court, who is a BC Government employee, and therefore the Public).
“Punishment for forgery” 367 “Every one who commits forgery (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceedingly ten years;..” (ED: subsection (b) provides for a summary conviction but very few summary convictions occur anyhow - lawyers committed an indictable offence, Government knows, police know, the Public Interest has been purposefully subversive and in Contempt of the Laws).
“False Information” 372 (1) “Every one commits an offence who, with intent to injure or harm a person, conveys information that they knew is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.” (ED: So, the mortgage registration document between Ita Robbins and Cambridge Mortgage laundered from an original loan agreement with ‘sister’ company Peet & Cowan Financial Services at Land Title Registry conveys false information with intent to injure. The original agreement for loan between Ita Robbins and Peet & Cowan stipulates a 98.7% Annual Percentage Rate. This agreement contains a BC Government Logo at the top of the agreement document. This loan agreement is obviously a Criminal rate of Interest {over 60%}. The mortgage registration filed by Cambridge Mortgage (same accounting information as with Peet & Cowan) unchanged, is filed with two rates of APR provided in the Box on the registration form which cites the Federal Interest Act. The Interest Rates filed were 8.9/9.2%, close rates but false information on its face, not only because of the laundered original criminal loan but because it is impossible to register a document under the Interest Rate Act using two percentages. Filthy fraud on its face. The BC Government provided the opportunity through Land Title BC for lawyers and lenders to commit criminal acts against ordinary persons and the Federal Government pursuant to the Interest Act of Canada).
(ED: So, the affidavit in support of the Petition filed by Cambridge Mortgage and lawyer Bakonyi must under law disclose all triable issues. Cambridge has been sued in New Westminster and served with documents responding to documents. The affidavit is false information. This is important for Readers to know because a foreclosure order does not attract an automatic appeal to the BC Court of Appeal. Instead, leave must first be sought). (ED: So, Cambridge is sued in February 2013 by Ita and Glen Robbins over the criminal (unconscionable) agreement in New Westminster Supreme Court File No.: 149328 by Ita and Glen Robbins prior to Cambridge Mortgage filing its petition in ‘sister’ court in Vancouver under File No.: H130330. {As noted no application beyond the petition is filed}. Bakonyi and Ellis had filed a Notice of Hearing of the Foreclosure and included false information that the petition response had been filed by Ita Robbins {when it had not} and asserting the false information thereupon that they had contacted Ita Robbins who had agree to a 15 minute hearing, when they knew Ita Robbins contested it. Ita Robbins was not served with the Notice of Hearing and discovered the False Information in the Binder provided just prior to Hearing. Glen P. Robbins attended the court, and one can see in the transcript that Ita Robbins (Glen) does not have the Notice of Hearing document from dicta at the hearing).
(ED: So at hearing Bakonyi and Ellis introduce the Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins (BCSC S111171 {currently altered to No: 1310 to hide the later fraud of Kleisinger and Hinkson} Reasons for Judgment of BC Supreme Court Justice Grauer. Bakonyi and Ellis provide False Information to Justice Fenlon suggesting that Grauer’s Reasons and subsequent order under 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act {months later amended because of Glen P. Robbins by Justice Grauer and reported on by Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun (Province)}, but where Glen Robbins is not notified of this amendment by the Law Society at 3 levels of BC Court of Appeal. 15 (5) has nothing to do with right of audience a matter considered under procedural law and not substantive because there is no proper Application on the subject of Glen P. Robbins attending any hearing on behalf of his wife. There is no affidavit in support of any Application, no Application is ever served (because it did not exist), and not proper evidence adduced. Fenlon J. is informed by Glen Robbins that her former boss Elizabeth Lyall at Fasken law firm was first lawyer for the Law Society of BC, and can see her name by looking at the front page of Grauer’s Reasons {she ought to have recused herself}. Fenlon J. ultimately makes a procedural order denying Glen P. Robbins even the opportunity to seek an adjournment, and ultimately a right of audience, but only for that hearing on that day). Ita and Glen Robbins file a regular appeal of this procedural order obtained upon False Information, this appeal has yet been heard by that Court).
(ED. So, when Michael Kleisinger, Compliance Officer at Law Society of BC writes to Glen P. In October 2013, he threatens Glen P. Robbins with Contempt of Court charges if Glen P. Robbins attends to any Court predicated on the Grauer J. order a continuation of the False Information provided by Law Society members Bakonyi and Ellis. The Law Society of BC was in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada once Kleisinger delivered that letter. (ED: So, when Michael Kleisinger Compliance Officer at Law Society of BC files a Notice of Application for a vexatious litigant order predicated on the BC Supreme Court Act he is purposefully filing a court document containing false information to conform to the one off Pilot Project at Vancouver law courts for the hearing of Interlocutory Applications for cases ALREADY ONGOING, not new cases which this one would have to be. The Pilot Project approved by the Chief Justice (Hinkson) we believe was a vehicle which Hinkson made available for Kleisinger for just this purpose notwithstanding the rationale for its inception, that is, backed up courts).
(ED: So, when Chief Justice Hinkson hears the vexatious litigant application and refers to it as a Petition, treats it as a petition, and holds a hearing on the basis that a rule 8 application is in fact a Petition he is thus using his office to aid and abet Kleisinger in his False Information - which essentially becomes a forgery {an application turns into a petition}. (ED. So, when Ron Bakonyi loses his April 7, 2014 hearing for vacant possession order {it's out of order of appeal and application from Glen P. Robbins} he does so knowing the application is doomed to fail and does not disclose in his application filings or affidavit any of the information pertaining to the two Robbins hearings scheduled two weeks hence, hearings where Bakonyi/Cambridge had failed to provide any defence. Bakonyi is gaming the system, but fails at hearing, and worse yet for him and his client, Justice Kloegman orders a stay of execution until April 30, 2014, and provides Glen P. Robbins (who has standing because of his application to be added as party to be heard two weeks hence) and Ita Robbins with custody of obtaining a new hearing date, which can only be acted upon the first week of the next month, {in this case May}. The fact that Kloegman J. heard from Glen P. Robbins presumes the Order Made After Application is erroneous, a presumption which reinforces the contention that the Conduct of Sale was obtained through a fraud on the court, and a fraud on Ita and Glen Robbins.
The Investigator should note from the transcript of this hearing provided {or available} that Bakonyi asks the Court for authority to file the order(s) which the Court accepts. This underscores the cunning of Bakonyi who has no intention of filing the stay of execution order or the order that Glen and Ita Robbins have custody of obtaining a hearing date. The investigator will see that the Court on that day, including the court clerk, tried to obtain a Trial Date for the Dates already secured by Glen and Ita Robbins April 23, and April 24, 2014. Under BC Civil Rules either party is able to file the order. Bakonyi’s request is the beginning of this thread of false information because he has no intention of filing the order, while Kleisinger and HInkson collude to provide false information to the court and injuring the Robbins to obtain a vexatious litigant order which is later used to deny the Robbins to obtain new hearing Dates from Trial Scheduling ordered by Kloegman J. April 7, 2014 in the custody of Glen P. Robbins, and along with Bakonyi’s intentional fraud and Contempt of Court to deny the filing of Kloegman’s order for stay of execution (which effectively kills Cambridges case-they will find out criminal for sure {or not so sure its the BC Courts}.
(ED: So, when Sue Smolen Manager at BC Trial Scheduling was phoned the first business day in May 2014 by Glen P. Robbins fulfilling Kloegman’s order on that account under H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins, Smolen refuses to provide a hearing date on the basis of Hinkson’s vexatious order against Glen P. Robbins under S111171 she is also wrongly denying Ita Robbins her Court ordered opportunity to obtain a fair hearing. {Breathtaking criminality eh?}. Smolen is acting in Contempt of Kloegman J.’s orders and knew she was doing it because she was the one the Court phoned down to just 3 weeks earlier on that matter. Whether Smolen knew this or didn’t is not relevant to the criminal act she willingly participated in). (ED: So, when Bakonyi for Cambridge filed an application to dismiss the application of Glen P. Robbins to be added as party scheduled as a Chambers matter (applications less than 2 hours) for April 23, 2014, he knew he was filing a document with the court that contained False Information, and was Information in Contempt of Judicial order, as Bakonyi and Cambridge knew there was a stay of execution order in place until April 30, 2014. And then when Bakonyi filed an application for dismissal of Ita Robbins appeal of the conduct of sale order obtained through criminality as well, he was filing a False Information with an appeal court of the BC Supreme Court {because the original order was made by a Master}. Keep in mind that any order from an appeal hearing can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. This presents the unique circumstance provided for at that court to have the order for dismissal of the appeal of the conduct of sale to be overturned simply on the basis that it was obtained during a period of stay of execution from an Independent Justice functioning under the Federal Judges Act).
(ED: So, when Bakonyi filed application for vacant possession order on April 24, 2014 {where he had no standing following his failure to defend Ita’s appeal and other applications to be heard that day}, he knew he was filing a document with the court that contained False Information, and was information in Contempt of Judicial order, as Bakonyi and Cambridge knew there was a stay of execution order in place until April 30, 2014). (ED. So, when Bakonyi for Cambridge responded to Ita Robbins Supreme Court of Canada appeal of the order nisi and other matters (35772) and failed to inform the Supreme Court of Canada that the orders he provided that Court obtained April 23 & 24, 2014 were obtained during a stay of execution order, he was providing False Information to the Supreme Court of Canada (omission). The Supreme Court of Canada Rules call for stay of execution orders from the lower court matter to be provided to that Court).
(ED: So, when Bakonyi {bet you're thinking Bakonyi is baloney eh?] filed the Vexatious Litigant Order of Chris Hinkson from S111171 with the Supreme Court of Canada in support of an application for vexatious litigant against Glen P. Robbins seeking orders from the Supreme Court of Canada for a vexatious procedure order in that case involving Ita Robbins (35772) unrelated to Glen P. Robbins, an order was given to him based on False Information and the file subsequently closed. The Supreme Court of Canada Rules permit the Court or the Registrar of that Court {an Ontario Public Servant also considered a Judge under the Act) to declare a case a vexatious procedure, but the Rules do not provide for that Court to declare an unrelated case Vexatious as there was no order against Ita Robbins for vexatious litigant {though one was obtained after the fraud to muddle the criminality}. The Supreme Court of Canada is aware that these orders under 35772 were obtained through a criminal act making both the Registrar (Bilodeau) and Judge (Wagner, now Chief Judge) complicit personally in that criminality). (ED: Witness the attempts Ita Robbins made to inform the Supreme Court under Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage under File No.: 35772 about the flagrant criminality of lawyers and judges - all returned to Ita Robbins).
In an effort to bookend this Breaking News with further relevant Criminal Code information {already filed at Supreme Court of Canada 36602 - Citation: Google v Equustek Solutions Inc. 2017 SCC 34, (2017) 1 S.C.R. 824 - where the issue relates to Google’s position that an injunction should not be provided to a non party (which Google was). (ED: Readers should note that it is this case where Glen P. Robbins filed an Intervenor application. An Intervenor application serves to inform the Judges. Although GPR’s application did not proceed to trial, it was “Read” by Judge Gordon Brown which was the desired intention of the filing. This means Brown J. of that Court Read all of the information provided, (predicated on a review ofMartins Criminal Code 2013 relative to all of the actions undertaken by these State criminals - a fair comment. See that Brown J. was involved in the decision by the majority).
Per: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, and Brown JJ where the majority said this: “The decision to grant an interlocutory injunction is a discretionary one and entitled to a high degree of deference. Interlocutory injunctions are equitable remedies that seek to ensure that the subject matter of the litigation will be preserved so that effective relief will be available when the case is ultimately heard on the merits. “...(U)ltimately, the question is whether granting the injunction is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case”. “The test for determining whether the court exercised its discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction against Google has been met in this case. There is a serious issue to be tried, “E” is suffering irreparable harm…”
(ED: So, how is it that the Supreme Court of Canada would assert this remedy in the Google case, but ignore the requirements in Ita Robbins v Cambridge under Supreme Court of Canada File No.: 35772 granting an injunction to criminals Cambridge Mortgage in that case based on evidence of criminal Chris Hinkson’s vexatious order against Glen P. Robbins under S111171 (SCC File No: 35302)? Ita’s issue is serious, she has suffered immense harm, and the harm is irreparable (other than significant compensation). (ED: The Supreme Court of Canada appears to have enjoined itself to the criminality of the others based on these Criminal Code provisions. Never mind the Judge titles or the supremeness advertised, at the heart of this issue is usury, a crime, money (property) laundering, perjury, false filings and information, and lawyer, judicial and police neglect and incompetence. For purposes of considering the potential filings at SCC and the potential for historical submissions on the history of Jewish persons being extricated from Cities and States - 100 instances, over history, the hard truth of the matter is that Bakonyi is a Jewish lawyer (Cambridge Mortgage, Peet & Cowan Financial Services), Ellis Roadburg is a Jewish law firm well known in that community (BMO Bank of Montreal), Michael Kleisinger is a Jewish lawyer (Law Society of BC). The three judges who initially heard Ita Robbins' application for leave under 35772 are Jewish - at that time 5/9 SCC Judges were Jewish. The issue is an original loan to Ita Robbins which the Supreme Court of Canada has READ (98.7%). This loan, as mentioned, with Peet and Cowan Financial was ‘rinsed’ ‘laundered’ through Cambridge Mortgage at 8.9/9.27%. All types of criminal activities occur primarily around lawyers, or alternatively lawyers who have been politically appointed to Judges. The criteria for filing at the Supreme Court of Canada in this type of case exists under Unique Circumstances {what isn’t unique in the wilful and knowing participation in crimes, other people would be charged with}. “Unique” as an adjective means “being the only one of its kind”. My wife and I preside over the most unique civil criminal case that has ever occurred in Canada, U.S. or any other liberal democracy in the World and I would note were received and READ by the UK High Court, with letter in response naturally asserting that country had no authority. {I knew the SCC was operating in Contempt}.
The SCC submissions Read by Brown J. in Google v Equustek {GPR’ Vimy Ridge legal maneuver} reads as follows from the Docket of the Supreme Court of Canada 36602: “Glen P. Robbins Motion for leave to intervene, and Motion for extension of time to file and serve (Book Form) and “Also includes four volumes: Book of Authorities, Reasons, Affidavits and exhibits volume one and two, Completed on October 28, 2016”. “Brown J.’s decision in GPR’s leave application is posted to docket list November 9, 2016 and Reads: “Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, Br, UPON APPLICATION by Glen P. Robbins for an extension of time file and serve and file a motion for leave to intervene, for leave to intervene in the above appeal and for other miscellaneous relief, AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motion for extension of time is granted. The motion for leave to intervene and all other motions are dismissed (No Costs).
(ED: This is essential because Brown J. “READ” the criminal case filed linking the lower court judge Fenlon J. et al as criminals (this file is located at SCC archives and research) and Brown granted the motion for extension of time to file and serve with No Costs attached to the dismissal. This was what was hoped for. Brown J. makes the criminal submissions credible!!!). (ED: Keep in mind too that in Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage (S.C.C. 35772) my wife’s application to that court was for an extension of time to file leave to appeal the order of foreclosure dated May 9, 2013 involving these five criminals: Ron Bakonyi (Cambridge), Robert Ellis, Ellis Roadburg (BMO Bank), Lauri Anne Fenlon (so called Independent Judge (LOL)) Michael Kleisinger (Law Society of B.C.), Chris Hinkson (so called Independent Judge).
Chris Hinkson as a lawyer spent much of his legal time either defending or prosecuting lawyers for offences - he is a longtime Law Society of BC hack).
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins Per Ita Robbins (others)
Benchers, Law Society of British Columbia, ℅ Dean Lawton, President, 845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 4Z9
Benchers, Law Society of Ontario, ℅ Executive Director or ‘person in charge’, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N6.

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