Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins accepts RCMP Invite to Settlement Outcome - Vol 1.
  Aug 26, 2021

Glen P. Robbins/Ita Robbins xxx,Burnaby, BC
Civil Litigation Unit 1107 14200 Green Timbers Way, Surrey, B.C., V3T 6P3.
Attention: Executive Administrative Manager for Civil Litigation, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Re: File Number: Civil Litigation No: 4110; (Public Complaint File 2021-12374).
At the outset of this communication obviously offered in good faith by Glen P. Robbins (GPR) and Ita Robbins (IR), the manner and method in which I/GPR communicates this letter includes the necessary facts and law relating to the case involving most particularly those pertaining to the state sanctioned home invasion on July 14, 2014 of our home of nearly one quarter of a Century - Honeysuckle Lane - discovered best through BC Supreme Court File: H130330 Vancouver Law Courts.
When the word state or sub state is used - it is intended to be used in the same way a Supreme Court of Canada, or US Supreme Court might use the word. Generally, it means government. However, a lawyer, a judge, a master of the court, a registrar of the court, is a state or sub state actor. They are recognized and designated as such consistent with the most recent SCC Court decisions which now distinguish and include in reasoning the power relationship between the two parties. Bhasin v Hrynew S.C.C. File No.: 35380 from 2014 supports this. This decision occurred just months following the unlawful home invasion and theft of property involved the RCMP July 14, 2014.
Most particularly this letter relates to (GPR’s) Offer To Settle with the RCMP (The Robbins-RCMP -Outcome-). Both GPR and his wife Ita Robbins (IR) have expressed compensation as the desired Outcome, however this letter relates to GPR’s Offer to RCMP Outcome and Settlement particularly. Ita remains open to a Settlement Offer from the RCMP.
We know that our Complaint has, in the past weeks been passed on to RCMP Investigators from the Coquitlam detachment, specifically Sgt Yuzyk of that RCMP detachment. We are advised by Sgt Y that the Complaint process occurs and is unrelated in any way to any settlement Outcome which may occur.
We also note the location of the office of Civil Litigation is Surrey, BC, a City in British Columbia which is also the subject of the BC Elections Act Petition to keep the RCMP in Surrey. I have not determined if, in any determinative way, in these unique circumstances, that, this is not, from the point of perception of a reasonable person - a Conflict of Interest? Does Civil Litigation for RCMP have a stable of their own lawyers or do they farm this stuff out to law firms?
In any event the actions and conduct of any of those outside lawyers or law firms is held by GPR to impact the RCMP 100% either in a positive way, or by way of the Adverse Inference. I don’t give adjournments.
This communication of cold hard facts, law, and irrefutable documentation of intentional fraud and contempt of the Court from the Complainants against mostly -made- people, will also be textured with GPR’s Classic Blend of wit, sarcasm, ridicule, and hither and yon - as well as his patented fleck or two of vitriol, the latter necessitated by the length of time, and the conduct of the state and sub state actors. As always when and if language becomes more abrasive it is done so on the basis - you got it Coming To You ®. Whack - whack.
A more orthodox cover letter will be included along with these submissions published at ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) (ED: to protect movie rights (LOL)) through Canada Post and will feature the signatures of GPR - under BCSC 149328 New Westminster Courthouse where Glen P. Robbins has standing as a plaintiff in the action.
Only GPR is providing an Offer To Settle RCMP Outcome at this time. The RCMP is welcome to make Ita Robbins an Offer to Settlement Outcome if they desire.
With regard to the above referenced matter, I am providing all of the “documents” which Mrs. Robbins and I have already provided to the RCMP.
These documents I/We are providing to RCMP Civil Litigation this August (2021) relates to the inducement of the RCMP proposal -to GPR and IR- to disclose what Outcome -we- would want from the RCMP, to which my wife and I both responded -compensation- - generally provided by Sgt Y, but specifically responded to by my wife and I both as -hell yes give us the ca$h- -, we both wholeheartedly agreed that it was not an apology but rather financial compensation (Canadian currency) (property, motor vehicles, trips to Hawaii) we claimed.
From Sgt. Y, Professional Standards - Complaints. “Once we establish the allegations and desired outcome, I will send you a copy of the completed form for your approval.”
From Sgt Yuzky August 5, 2021 : “Up to July 10, 2021, we were corresponding on these issues. It was only after that date, when you wrote to me your desired outcome, that I could complete the 4110 and send you a copy to verify that I had accurately captured your allegations and outcome.”
Because the RCMP took the initiative to step up to offer the Complaint process to GPR and IR is most commendable, I am, in a show of good faith, reciprocating with this essentially Offer To Settle to Outcome - swiftly providing the RCMP an opportunity to be free of this matter with (at least) Glen P. Robbins (ED: its almost a gift).
Consider this: The State has behaved so badly and been so trounced by ordinary common but fully vaccinated folks - particularly because of this one case Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage that it forced a federal election. Why else was it called? Think about this before you decide if I’m kidding.
Advertorial Break for ROBBINS Sce Research (1998).
No one possessing a dictionary, thesaurus, book of synonyms etc., can determine why an election was necessary. It's done though. It makes me think about the Seinfeld Comedy Series -SCS- raison d'etre - a show about nothing--an election about nothing. My theory about our families' case forcing the election is sufficiently resplendent with law and facts (and excellent perfect escalation- reciprocal shaming) enough to fill the void. Our ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) poll - published worldwide and precisely while the Prime Minister was busy with the Governor General of Canada revealed that a super majority of Canadians did not believe a federal election was -Important/Necessary-.
This poll, created a polling outcome, where it was as if the Prime Minister had been shot in the thigh by a Writer$niper - right at the starting gate of the election horse race. Justin Trudeau wasn’t actually shot in the thigh by a sniper with a weapon, (ED: and that is good because real violence is bad). I humbly want the reader to adhere to my polling outcomes and to imagine political candidates like horses lined up to race. In this case, the gates open, splat, Trudeau hit in the thigh, by PowerWriter - Glen P. Robbins - born in a Saanich B.C. manger. Just imagine it, because politically that’s what happened with that ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) poll. It affected the Election outcome. Wait and see.
In the real world if Prime Minister were (sadly) hit by actual sniper fire (ED: which is violence which we all deplore) Trudeau would likely go down in a heap from being hit in the thigh, or be badly hobbled, and so far through the first week of this Canadian general election, politically, -he hasbeen- as provided for by my imagery. But, right after Trudeau is hit---- -who shoots- out in front of the pack, but Canada Green Party Leader Annamie Paul of Toronto, an all -black lives- matter advocate - she is against the Taliban - asserts empathy for all military personnel - and does it looking like Ms. Canada Obama Paul. Half the crowd is cheering her while the other half figures it is she who hit Trudeau. Paul is from Toronto, hits like George Foreman - goes Caitlin- and needs to hold at least 6 rallies in that city like she's running for mayor there. Talk to the money manager. Get a loan if you need to.
No sooner does the tall, elegant, intelligent Annamie Paul bust that Green Giant Magic Move (GGMM), then the last thing I would have expected to occur - happens, its Conservative of Canada Leader Erin O’Toole busting his own conservative move to the front of the race overtaking Paul -and then, yes, I heard it, and maybe you heard it -it’s the shot heard round the Canadian Election, O’Toole announces a ban on all foreign ownership in Canada’s real estate market, a two year Pilot Project Finally, a policy proposed that is clear, necessary and will work.
I knew then - exactly then- that O’Toole was going to win government in this Election 2021--soon as I heard him selling His Party’s ban on foreign purchase of real estate, in conjunction with permitting those investors - troublesome to local home buyers - but just the right birds to put their money in the development of rentals for a return on investment. It's simple and voters will all take a bite of this. (ED: In the 2nd week as I type Trudeau has agreed to a ban on foreign ownership too). In normal western democracies this unanimity among all parties would signal a decline in prices of real estate in larger markets like Vancouver and Toronto - its hard to know what’s real and who is on whose team).
Unless Canadians feel misty eyed about Trudeau, who did well during COVID, but may have called the Election prematurely O’Toole will surprise the oddsmakers. Remember, Winston Churchill saved England from the Germans in WW 2 - and despite being the greatest hero to emerge from that war --- was subsequently voted out of Office no matter.
Anyhow, O’Toole’s out in front and I hear many experts say his plan is to try to go wire to wire in the winning Government for the Conservative Party of Canada. O’Toole went from unknown to front runner in this early first week. He sent a simple message of hope for all Canadians, particularly in large centers like Toronto (Ontario) and Vancouver (British Columbia). Take out the influence of foreign money. Increase supply of homes. But if I were O’Toole I’d keep Trudeau close - know you can -kick- - and really look hard for a sport to knock him out. Voters would like something like that - a type of determinism - Trudeau took us to the cave for safety but refuses to leave it when most everyone can see the light. O’Toole comes on as hope, uses the English language beautifully and has that type of voice you purchase from.
What we have - as known by any non gaslighter (ED: See also vexing Intellectual denial) is not sustainable, the Vancouver real estate has been a fraud in my opinion for likely a decade. There is an under supply of homes. If there were not a massive under supply of homes for sale and homes for sale were similar to past decades, relatively speaking, an honest real estate market would be down (30%), at least. Be serious please. And O’Toole’s ban is just for two years - a pilot project ‘to get to the truth of matters relating to and involving Vancouver real estate’.
Back from that Advertorial for ROBBINS Sce Research (1998)
Should good faith not be reciprocated at this juncture of this state made debacle -Honeysuckle Lane-, in dealing with the RCMP Civil Litigation File No.: 4110, I will consider any offers or reference to Outcome to have been made by myself and my wife in good faith nonetheless and any omissions or other errors on the part of the RCMP discovered. The RCMP, if they haven’t already done so should look up my friend Kevin Yeates - who still lives near our Honeysuckle home. A 25 year RCMP retired, really fine gentleman - did a number of radio shows with me. I am certain Kevin will vouch that I am a ‘fine Canadian gentleman’. Along with settlement loot or treasure, GPR would like a beautifully framed picture with the RCMP Commissioner and police insignia declaring GPR to be a fine Canadian gentleman. If Kevin wishes a role in the brokering I am fine with this.
As former U.S. President Ronald Reagan said about Russia (re missile reduction) however, ‘trust but verify’. In my dealings with the Canadian government, BC government and courts generally, I have NO difficulty placing those three institutions as Metaphoric Russia (MR) in this scenario. In any event, I agreed with Sgt “Y” of Coquitlam detachment, during the most recent period in which he had conducted the process of Complaints versus RCMP Officers ---- to provide these documents to you.
I also add early on in this communication that my response to the lawyer representing Civil Forfeiture in the binder collection, may not reflect precisely what remains on the table from that process in British Columbia or Canada. More specifically, BC Attorney General lawyer Michael Lawless acting for the Director (of Civil Forfeiture) and Legal Services Branch states in his February 9, 2021 letter beginning at the bottom of page 1. ….”In order for you to meet the requirements of this section (“eligible victim”), you must suffer a financial loss as a direct result of the forfeiture of property under the CFA. Based on the materials you have provided, no such forfeiture or property under the CFA has occurred. Consequently, you cannot be an ‘eligible victim’ and cannot apply for compensation under the CFA.”
Although I don’t entirely agree with Mr. Lawless on this,(and neither does the legislation) the law does say the Attorney General of BC, the Executive Council or Solicitor General of BC or counterpart at Fed, can take action under BC Civil Forfeiture law if they choose. Our action was necessary nonetheless as part of the perfect escalation at the point of the Province of British Columbia to flush this process out, and, the point is there remains and opportunity for payout, or an opportunity for the RCMP to consider...the unlawful activity - criminal in some cases, under this legislation.
In pursuing what appeared to be an easy opportunity to resolve the matter for my wife and I, we discovered what a sham this Civil Forfeiture was anyhow. Kind of like Canada Pension was under Harper and Kenney. (ED: O’Toole needs to treat these two like land mines) Relating to the Civil Forfeiture plan - Money going to police administration and not victims.
I must say this - though: Mr. Lawless makes a good point for RCMP Civil Litigation to contemplate. If, upon the filing of the Stay of Execution orders and other administrative changes to orders, dismissals etc., which would have to occur at every level of BC Court - we would ultimately have evidence of the ‘eligible victim’. This keeps this fund in play to Ita Robbins and myself and others on this subject matter. Civil Litigation could investigate and have their attorney file the Civil Forfeiture documents at BC Court of Appeal and away from the obviously crooked BC Chief Justice Chris Hinkson, forcing the dominos to fall from that point.
Before I get on with this Offer to RCMP Outcome as well, I must deal directly with the concept of time and urgency. Quickly to the point, I will make an Offer to Settle (outcome) forthwith and herein, my wife Ita will not.
The events that follow will shape the course of action going forward for Ita and for myself. I point out for your consideration the draft applications made to the BC Supreme Court provided in the affidavit which exists in the body of the Complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council. Note that one of these orders is for monies to be paid out of Court. Under BC Civil Rules it is not necessary to have a hearing to obtain an order for monies to be paid out of court. It ought to be simple.
My affidavit affirms this.
The amount of money remaining in the court is not unsubstantial, six figures. My wife will solicit professional counsel asap with the anticipation of retaining them to simply have those monies paid out of court into that lawyers trust for and then paid to her. This will activate the corrupted and contemptuous Foreclosure file H130330, and the payment of funds out of the court also creating the logical opportunity to provide the BC Supreme Court with an opportunity to make a simple payment out of court - simple. This would then obviously become the beginning of the end for the crooked State & sub State actors involved in this contemptuous unlawful circumstance, with the filing of the Stay of Execution Order (and other Orders) by a professional lawyer in this instance. A professional or notary public can legally deal with money transfers.
And lastly, for the entrenched gaslighters who might say - ‘Judges cannot speak to matters’ - blah blah blah. Imagine what these State actors would actually do if NONE of what I was saying was true? Their Mainstream Media and ally - News producer Michael B. Kikkle would be all over it. The judges and other legal confederates have been caught and exposed by two ordinary people, right down to the last details.
Then, following the filing of the Stay of Execution Order made April 7, 2014 --- everything under BCSC H130330 Vancouver, Supreme Court of Canada 35772, BCSC S111171, Supreme Court of Canada 35302 - BC Court of Appeal implodes. Also court cases in New Westminster BC Supreme Court (alleged sister court of Vancouver) like Notice of Claim amended to include RCMP 149328 will be knocked over like bowling pins.
Lawyers, judges and bureaucrats will be investigated by police, or, at least, ought to be investigated by police now that the police have cause to do so. The only thing left would be to decide how much loot ($$$$$$) comes out of Civil Forfeiture, or elsewhere for GPR and his wife Ita Robbins (IR), who along with other family members deserve long overdue compensation.
It's a new era of publishing and the mainstream media aren’t the medium anymore. Michael B Kikkle had his time over the last two years, but mom’s love isn’t enough anymore and Big Daddy has to step in and take over the Media. This begins and ends with 2024 US President Donald Trump’s class action lawsuit against Social Media Giants who quite clearly are not benign platforms - as required by their enabling legislation - but removed the President of the United States right to free speech during an Election campaign. In GPR’s world this is Rosenburgish - only with actual guilt- -
The other option is to consider a leave application to the court citing (CJ) Hinkson's crooked order with the Law Society of BC (S11171 {gaslight file no 1310}), where Hinkson hung his shingle as a lawyer, and worked with his former partner in his criminal misadventures Michael Kleisinger - for orders described including the Stay of Execution (Kloegman J. April 7, 2014 to April 30, 2014) and cite the Protest of Hinkson’s Order and include documentation of the chief justices fraud on the court he has control of, as GPR did at the top of his Application Response and Application when he filed those documents prior to the miscarriage of justice and contempt of the orders of Justice Grauer.
For the record, I believe the Law Society of British Columbia and Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger + former Law Society bagman and current Chief Justice Chris Hinkson + Ron Bakonyi for clients Cambridge Mortgage and Peet and Cowan Financial - all knew the April 7, 2014 out of order application for vacant possession by Bakonyi, was coordinated, specifically and directly between Kleisinger and Hinkson, former law partners, both with big history with Glen P. Robbins.
Every party to a court action ever before Hinkson should review his judgements.
The RCMP may need to consider whether or not they are going to arrest these legal actors. There is certainly cause under the Criminal Code of Canada. This crime has been known from stem to stern in this State of Canada - State of BC - State of Justice Canada.
Here are the public relations priorities I have to consider relative to political events. The RCMP have a BC Petition ongoing from August 16, 2021 until November 15, 2021. By November 2021 the BC NDP Cullen Commission will provide the Findings of its Inquiry into Real Estate Fraud and Money Laundering. The RCMP have issues in their professional dealings with this criminal enterprise, which did not well endow them in the Cullen Commission and which will likely be exposed by Cullen who was Assistant Chief Justice under Chris Hinkson when all this skullduggery at the BC Supreme Court, Smithe Street, Vancouver was ongoing. A federal election has been called for September 20, 2021. (ED: Does anyone at Civil Litigation RCMP, Media, or in Commissioner Lucki’s office need me to repeat this clue for you?)
A distraction like the RCMP stunt arresting the two drug addicts just prior to the BC Provincial Election - but one that works out - with this Outcome with GPR. Remember there was nearly a Million dollars paid in overtime RCMP/Police phony investigation into the two drug addicts - for drugs, burgers and money (ED: Pitiful), and tens of millions more for the overall investigation.
Parliament is dissolved. There is a Department of Justice but no Elected Attorney General in Canada during this writ period. The Attorney General if BC is not captured by any Writ Period. (ED: Just the growing bounty on his head). What a perfect window of opportunity for the RCMP to settle with Glen P. Robbins. What a perfect time for the RCMP to help itself and identify the unlawful activity of foreclosure lawyers.
O’Toole’s policy to ban foreign ownership of real estate presumes that although he knows foreclosure is a fact of life, why set up Canadians, British Columbians, Ontarians to fail, by forcing them to overpay by 20-40 percent on home prices - which arrived at these lofty heights (through fraud I contend occurred between and among real estate agents, lawyers, and state institutions like Land Title BC) with honest hard earned dollars for homes--because of foreigners and BC Fraudsters - all state actors (ED: note there is no specific reference to any specific foreigners)? This proposed policy, plus increase in supply of homes, plus providing accommodation to those frozen out by the foreign ownership ban, and O’Toole’s further desire to have mortgage periods extended is all an effort to ensure Canadians are not being ripped off in phony real estate markets involving in part members of the Law Society of BC.
There is a real sense of political symbiosis of Erin O’Toole’s election proposal and settlement with the Robbins by the RCMP over -Honeysuckle Lane-. O’Toole, if elected, would have to decide - is he willing to protect the crooked State - just because they all belong to the same elite club - or do the right thing and ensure that IR and GPR get the appropriate relief. Again, IR and GPR equal the Public Interest. The Judges, lawyers, and at this juncture - the police all appear self interested, covering their backsides - not enforcing law or rules.
Anything that triggers a response from governments that aids in compensation being realized by Ita Robbins is likely to mitigate against damages RCMP might have to pay, given that although they are liable at law for all of her damages, the weight of the entire sordid narrative could be more fairly be seen by the Public as against the lawyers. It is then open to the RCMP to sue other parties like bailiffs, crooked lawyers and gaslighting governments etc.
Settlement with Glen P. Robbins by the RCMP for their part in the July 2014 personal holocaust (ED: the small h makes this new personal holocaust (nph) particular to the individual person) has to be decided by September 5, 2021. Until then, I/GPR will continue to marshall public relations forces in taking an adverse political interest against the RCMP well within the law (as is my custom). No settlement within that time period would also trigger an adverse political interest against the Liberals. The BC NDP have been charged politically by my firm with the RCMP Petition as well. This indebtedness will now be shared with the federal Liberals.
A public settlement allows the RCMP in the calm for Eviction storm following Covid to say: ‘Attending with bailiffs without a court order is not something that taxpayers are paying the RCMP for. We keep the peace and follow the Criminal Code and the applicable provincial and federal laws applying to the The Force’’. (ED: Won’t lenders (and publisher Michael B. Kikkle) just look like a plate of cancer?)
However-Keeping the peace- is a more theoretical abstract and has no legal relationship to showing up in a civil forfeiture enforcement process. It is however, important language contained in the Criminal Code of Canada. There have to be clear reasons (ED: cause, justification) why the police are believed necessary in any circumstance they are involved in --- to keep the peace. The Police, the Force as the legislation asserts are paid to enforce the Criminal Code and other judge made laws. There is nothing GPR has researched, or his people have researched anywhere in any bona fide western democracy where the State operates on private for profit bailiff laws.
Nowhere in the law does it say the RCMP work for BC Bailiffs or Alberta Bailiffs or any Bailiffs anywhere in Canada. The idea that police might attend if there is an expectation of trouble on the undocumented say so of bailiffs is dangerous business, likely promoted by foreclosure lawyers and bailiffs who want police to do their jobs for them, and expect the taxpayer to subsidize this unlawful activity. (ED: One thousand years and ongoing).
How many unlawful civil foreclosures have the Police RCMP attended to in BC or across Canada without lawful cause or justification?
What is the evidence of proving reasonable expectation of violence for enforcement officers? Is there a list of criteria? If so, where is it? Shouldn’t the public (ED: ultimately the people evicted belong to that demographic) be made aware of this criteria? It’s absolutely nowhere to be found in the law. Not in the direct statutes - RCMP ACT, BC BAILIFF ACT, POLICE ACT BC - and not in Alberta legislation relating to enforcement and bailiffs cited herein as well (ED: Thats two provinces baby this engages Federal law at antitrust and the Federal Court including class action which in the Federal Court of Canada requires only one plaintiff to proceed).
The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear a person considered an enforcement problem requiring police assistance needs to be extremely violent with serious documented anti social and anti authority CRIMINAL conduct recorded in criminal proceedings and/or with the firepower of the current Taliban to attend on enforcement (ED: Literally not kidding). There is however, no law in Canada, or in British Columbia, or in Alberta, which provides ANY role for the RCMP in civil enforcement. (ED: OH look who has wandered onto the stage during the show - uninvited and without any speaking lines...if it isn’t RCMP?)
Under the Province of Alberta’s Civil Enforcement Procedure Manual updated March 2021 from top of page Threats of Violence: “If a Bailiff comes in contact with a debtor who threatens violence, he should assess the situation, do not force matters. Withdraw quietly and report the facts fully to the Civil Enforcement Agency and/or the Police.”
The first criteria derived from this standard of practice from the Alberta Manual asserts the proposal that violence has FIRST been threatened upon the BAILIFF before the Bailiff seeks a more coercive approach, normally the Police. The BAILIFF would have to answer the question whether or not anyone at -Honeysuckle- before the state sanctioned home invasion threatened violence against them. The second part of this first criteria is that this threat of violence be forwarded to supervisors (Civil Enforcement Agency in the Alberta case) or to the Police. Does the RCMP have any credible evidence provided by Consolidated Bailiff to them that states someone residing at -Honeysuckle Lane-has threatened bailiffs attending to -Honeysuckle Lane-? If the answer is No - write the check.
The Police have not been threatened with violence. Back to the Supreme Court of Canada standard, did anyone at -Honeysuckle- ever threaten a police officer? Answer is No. The RCMP showed up with guns and tasers and handcuffs - out of the blue-. (ED: I know what you are thinking -- just start turning the dial on the compensation vault).
This Alberta version of Civil Enforcement provides a scenario where the RCMP are NOT involved, but, by inference, does not rule out the Bailiffs attending to property knowing ahead of time that there may be violence to their enforcing orders.
Why would Bailiffs go forward in a situation that they knew was likely to confront violence, and why would it be in the law? The inference of the law suggests the bailiffs must first experience the threats, if, I would logically deduce, there is no other identifiable evidence which would be cause for police attendance. In either case, particularly the latter, where the bailiff has information ahead of time - the BC Bailiff Act indicates that the bailiff must take action to get permission from authority to use the police. Bringing the police to foreclosures based on whimsy needs to cease, it is unlawful activity and in our family experience tantamount to being terrorized by police and other persons including lawyers and judges.
At any point, to keep the peace you pledged - isn't it important to engage the judicial system where there is any threat of violence? Be straight about this however: A threat of violence is a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Bailiffs would be obliged then to file a complaint regarding this criminal offence. But none occurred.
The Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Canada have a service of documents nailed down quite well. Why are private companies serving court documents? I mean, your begging for abuse - and GPR has proven an Encyclopedia’s worth of evidence of miscarriage - without doubt. Relax, give up - compensate us and let it go. Go - go!
The Writ of Execution document naturally follows the Vacant Possession Court Order, however, the Writ of Execution document, the only one Bailiffs were showing that day, is signed by a Deputy Registrar of the BC Court Administration. The Deputy Registrar is an employee of the Province of British Columbia. He has no judicial powers as such, and certainly no more than a Referee of the Court. In BC a Referee is lower than a Master. All provincial employees.
So the Deputy Registrar and Attorney General of BC Court Services, and not court fraudster lawyer Ron Bakonyi are in the chain of command of the state sanctioned home invasion and fraud -Honeysuckle Lane- through the authority of the Writ of Execution document (valid or not).
The fact that the Deputy Registrar and others were likely deceived by legal fraudsters Bakonyi, Ellis, Kleisinger, and Hinkson (CJ) and the Law Society of BC generally in the ordinary course of business provides them with no sanctuary in civil law. That BC Attorney General document enabled the state sanctioned home invasion. I can only presume that the Bailiffs presume the Writ of Possession order is captured within the authority of the vacant possession order. No matter, they are within the chain of the fraud, the criminal robbery actually of GPR(Me) and his/my wife IR and family.
One is as liable as the other within the illumination chain of custody of the fraud and relative parts played by the various state and sub state actors in the overall unlawful activity. The BC Government is responsible for the events of the day including the efforts of the RCMP employed in BC under contract with the RCMP. Where does it state in this provincial contract with the RCMP any stipulated exemption to all other laws - that police, including the RCMP can attend willy nilly on enforcement proceedings on the say so of bailiffs?
May I read that contact please? The BC Court of Appeal did Order GPR to be designated an Officious Bystander. This designation relates to contract law. GPR has higher status than Meghan Markel - therefore….. No reputable person in this area would disagree because the chain of evidence - particularly this easy document stuff - is indisputable fact, it's a court filed document, (ED: not something you undo everyday without another fraud on the pile).
The RCMP settles with us, brings down the whole ring of legal bandits - it's the story of this plastic Federal Election - and gets the Court Administration and its Union out of some hot water in the melee. The RCMP catch the bad guys. It's a Storybook, maybe even Epic! Maybe the courageous Chase from Paw Patrol Movie gets and RCMP uniform? From no perspective is there an argument for the RCMP or any police in this law either on a primae facie reading of the text, or any interpretation that might be made by Bailiff(s) interests as I have assessed in any philosophical sense. The bailiffs and RCMP are boxed in.
“The role of the police is to preserve the peace. A civil enforcement bailiff and/or agency should only contact the police in the following circumstances: 1. Bailiff has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace will incur while the bailiff is carrying out their duties. 2. Court Order requiring the police to assist. 3. Physically removing tenants from a premises after the locks have been changed/order for possession has been enforced.”
A breach of the peace is language which compels the engagement of the Criminal Code. If a doctor or school teacher observes, say --- a child with bruising and a broken arm - repeated injury is compelled by not only professional ethics, but by the law to engage the state, and sometimes the police if reasonable justification not to consider this option is not provided. The reasonable ground is a standard set in the legislation observed that compels the Bailiffs to believe the Criminal Code was going to be breached. (ED: Good luck with that size 5).
What are those reasonable grounds for RCMP attendance in the Robbins matter? The BC Bailiff Act makes it a legal requirement that bailiffs obtain direction prior to contacting police. This would be implied in the effort to obtain a court order where an affidavit would need to be filed with the court setting out why it was reasonable to send in the guns in a civil matter, where no statute or regulation exists. The Police cannot attend without a warrant or court order. Where is the RCMP’s warrant or court order for July 14, 2014? Does the RCMP want to suggest their court order is the Bakonyi phony writ of execution order, which the RCMP did not have in their hand in any event when they attended? If that’s the case then the RCMP link themselves directly to the frauds and contempt on court and my wife and I. If the RCMP say they went on the Bailiffs say so, and acknowledge that is not a reasonable justification, all that is left is to Settle with GPR.
Ultimately, unless the real estate involved has less than zero equity, the Costs of a court Application to obtain an order from a justice to engage police - are usually attached to any equity on the property being foreclosed upon. Legal counsel in these cases could apply to the court for an order qualifying the police attendance beforehand and show the court the reasons why the police should be engaged and the law which dictates or infers by reasonable interpretation police are a legislated aspect of foreclosure. Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing lenders' foreclosure operations. (ED: Do I need to repeat this headline to RCMP Media in light of the ban on foreign investment?)
The taxpayer doesn’t pay for compensation for GPR and Ita Robbins. The taxpayer pays only for the insurance for the Police or Government (ED: The State) which pays for GPR and Ita Robbins. Their home insurance company Wawanesa refused to even respond to the claim made for stolen property including house (and land) (ED: Insurance coverage near $1,000,000 for house and other property not land).. Trudeau approved $600 Million for a Federal Election - that scant few wanted.
Theoretically, monies from civil forfeiture which go to police and not victims in any event, could be paying for this insurance policy. It follows therefore that Glen and Ita Robbins and their financial losses incurred because of this cooperative state fraud are in fact the de facto funders (by their loss in unlawful circumstances) of the very insurance policy which would pay out on any settlement amount.
Recounting a similar experience with our house insurance Wawanesa, where we claimed our insurance based house and other property (not land) of $900,000 + 2014 based on theft.
The RCMP could stipulate that they were induced by fraud to attend a civil enforcement they should not attend. Ultimately this inducement was predicated on unlawful activity of legal counsel, not known at the time by the RCMP. Nevertheless, this has resulted in what we are declaring is a theft of property, providing the opportunity for Mr. and Mrs. Robbins to collect on their policy with Wawanesa. In 2014 the land around -Honeysuckle- was valued at an estimated $500,000 (ED: circa 2014). (ED: It’s $900,000 to $1,000,000 for the same land today). The insurance policy plus land arrives at $1.4 Million. Admittedly this is (only) a good thumbnail estimate and although coincidentally proximate to Glen P. Robbins Offer To Settle Outcome, they are unrelated.
It better exemplifies Ita Robbins loss at this time or at least her intentions in insuring her home and valuables. Remember, in 2014 Ita Robbins was paying monthly home insurance of $175 including for earthquakes. Outside the parameters of direct discussion of GPR’s Settlement Outcome - I would say frankly that Ita Robbins wants to use part of her compensation to purchase a home in North Burnaby where she has been living for some time now near family. Homes are more expensive in this area than in Westwood Coquitlam where -Honeysuckle Lane- was located. Note as well that Ita Robbins overall is also seeking lost rent from Honeysuckle reasonably assessed at $60,000 per year for 7 years or over $400,000, plus a cost adjustment to go from Westwood Plateau to Vancouver Heights near Capitol Hills of likely $500,000 more.
No other damages such as non pecuniary, aggravated damages, and punitive damages are considered in these aforementioned compensation amounts for Ita Robbins. This brings me to this point of the segregated Glen P. Robbins Settlement Offer. I/GPR would prefer based on a without prejudice basis that any settlement not be based on victimized damages but rather based on the foundation of a malicious disrespect of a fine Canadian gentleman.
I have canvassed the Alberta Civil Enforcement Act and find no reference to the RCMP or to any law which brings the police to a resident on the whimsy of a Bailiff. Indeed, I cite again, from page 20 of Alberta Civil Enforcement at page 2. “The Agency will ensure that no Bailiff in its employ will, while performing his or her duties, will be in possession of a weapon of any kind.”
The RCMP (Police Force) are the de facto weapons the bailiffs use to assist them with enforcement or as it occurred at the Robbins home, RCMP guns were de facto used to hold up Glen and Ita Robbins and steal all (and I mean not one child’s memorabilia-like a Holocaust of Individual Freedoms). Yes, that’s it, a Holocaust - a burning of the Individual - of the property owner - also encapsulated and revealed in the Covid Communist History (CCH).
Watch for GPR and ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) to use the word holocaust generally means mass death - we will use it more liberally to discuss the more egregious actions occurring in society in modern times where death does not mean the cessation of life, possibly inference of mass loss of individual rights etc. For example, we might say BC Premier John Horgan has created a type of holocaust in BC (ED: the burning of citizens rights to freedoms) buy reimplenting mask policy. Going forward, and using this example, we would be able to link John Horgan’s name with the word holocaust. He can explain it.
I also provide for further context this from Global News article June 25, 2020 under title: “New Listing: B.C. Judge orders sale of notorious townhouse-turned-hostel.” “A North Vancouver townhouse that once converted into a 15 bed hostel is now in the hands of the court sheriff.”
“In a phone hearing on Thursday, BC Supreme Court Justice Barry Davies ordered the sale of the unit owned by Emily Yu”
“During the legal process, Yu was found in contempt in court…” “Yu will be able to remain in the property as long as she remains cooperative through the sale process.”.
From North Shore News June 26, 2020: “Davies order also states that Yu must provide the townhouse keys to the sheriff.”
Again from Global News October 23, 2020: “Justice Barry Davies approved an application by strata to evict Emily Yu.” “Yu must leave the property by Nov. 30 (2020).” “A restraining order would apply after that date and refusing could lead to arrest.” “Davies found her in contempt of court a second time for not complying with B.C. Supreme Court orders.”
So two contempt orders - count em - two - for the Asian woman before a restraining court order introducing the possibility of police attendance is made…’that could lead to arrest.’ The Asian woman is operating a 15 room brothel in a townhouse. Her strata and neighbours hate her because she behaves so selfishly. I wonder if Michael B Kikkle publishing (ED: see also the sons and daughters of the mother) will publish any material on that during the RCMP Petition?
Judge Davies shows contempt for the Asian woman and charges her twice with contempt before he orders the Cops on alert (through inference of failure to adhere to court contempt orders). The White Robbins family (ED: See also cracker, honky more enjoyable so called racial slurs) (Robbins) have won their court case involving a contract for loan and mortgage at 98.7% Interest and two other Interest representations - hands down and cannot even file orders hard earned (ED: winning lottery numbers (LOL)) don’t receive the lawful benefit of the orders won, are blocked from pursuing these, no contempt charges - nothing (ED: vexatious litigant a reason to call the police - he has vexing judo your honour (LOL)). There are 7 lawyers and judges of Jewish background involved in the court processes - mostly unlawful or involving misfeasance.
RCMP Civil Litigation should note that although the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Ita Robbins leave application for an extension of time to file leave to appeal at the BC Court of Appeal of the order nisi made May 9, 2013, that a general appeal of the entire hearing was made. Although the BC Court of Appeal has been wanting for lack of prosecution, an application can be made now directly to the Supreme Court of Canada along with an application for an extension of time under the unique circumstances relating to the obtaining of the order nis by fraud on May 9, 2013.
RCMP Civil Litigation should note that although the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Ita Robbins leave application for an extension of time to file leave to appeal at the BC Court of Appeal of the order nisi made May 9, 2013, that a general appeal of the entire hearing was made. Although the BC Court of Appeal has been wanting for lack of prosecution, an application can be made now directly to the Supreme Court of Canada along with an application for an extension of time under the unique circumstances relating to the obtaining of the order nisi by fraud on May 9, 2013.
So, with extension of time and unique circumstances as the cause justification the appeal of the hearing of foreclosure is available to the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC decision 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge was effected by Bakonyis fraud on the lower superior court including the unfiled Stay of Execution H130330 which we know ought to have been filed with the BC Supreme Court Smithe Street, AND simultaneously filed with the Supreme Court of Canada.
There is a direct appeal available to the Supreme Court of Canada based on Nathan Smith J.’s order for dismissal of the Ita Robbins appeal of the conduct of sale obtained unlawfully during the Stay of Execution period. The unlawful vacant possession order was appealed to the BC Supreme Court, however it is noted by the Judge in that hearing that Ita Robbins indicated that she wasn’t served with Bakonyi’s response and in any event it was filed with the court within the right time. A Stay of Execution was sought by Glen & Ita Robbins at that time.

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