JUMP TO HOME PAGE

MANITOBA - MAY 25-2017

TO: Premier Brian Pallister FROM: Roger Callow

PERSONAL 1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

204 Legislature Bdlg. Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

450 Broadway web: employescasecanada.ca

Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8

t. 204-945-3714 f. 204-949-1484

MESSAGE:

1) Enclosed is a Manitoba Application in a 32 year unresolved labour case with its genesis in British Columbia although for reasons outlined in this Application, various forums across Canada have been used due to the bloody mindedness of a grey eminence which has the power to bring the course of justice in Canada into disrepute through their disruptions.

2) Neither the Prime Minister with his executive powers nor the RCMP have seen fit to stem this ongoing debacle which has seen the collapse in credibility not only of provincial courts but also of presiding premiers whom are kept fully apprised of events in this legal disaster without equal as is the case for you as premier of Manitoba.

3) In general the case is about compensation (none paid here) for lay-off targets which is enshrined in the laws but in the Employee's Case, the law is twisted, bent and buggered by the conspirators to avoid exposure in the biggest judicial scam in Canadian jurisprudence.

4) The scope of the question to the Manitoba court relates to the all-important relationship between imposed legislation and the oversight powers of the court; a question of interest to both Employers as well as premiers plus employees of all stripes.

5) The general conduct of this legal case to date is for the Employer, the West Vancouver School District with the support of the B.C. Teachers Union to manipulate the courts through specious technicalities in order to subvert any hearing of the central issues.

6) For this reason, I have stripped the case of all 'case-sensitive' material in Manitoba so that only the question outlined in 4) is asked. I do not include either the Employer or Union as Defendants as at different times, both entities have raised this jurisdictional question which has been studiously avoided by the courts of law.

7) In the one hour hearing, once a docket number is assigned, I will specifically request that the presiding judge does not request briefs from the Employer or Union as that indication is evidence, as seen from past interference, as to the grey eminence acting through the office of the Chief Justice as given tacit support by a premier such as yourself whom is being kept fully informed in this matter. You do not need to go there. Nor do your courts.

8) Such expanded action merely forces a full blown case amid my charges of extensive fraud by the conspirators which includes various judges. That kind of embarrassment you do not need.

9) Surely the citizens of Manitoba deserve better with their courts hence you are encouraged to support fair court dealings which means only my Application will be heard without Employer-Union interference. I will keep you notified of events as they unroll.

Yours truly, (Roger Callow)

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance.

APPLICATION

1. The applicant makes application for: (State the precise relief claimed.)

1) After reviewing the list of applicable rules under the laws of Manitoba, anyone would be confused as to what is being requested from Manitoba courts

2) In the above respect, it would be easier to enunciate what this case does not require in this 32 year unresolved labour case with its genesis in British Columbia:

a) It does not require a finding as to the legitimacy of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver, British Columbia teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 under the auspices of the imposed BILL 35 (School Amendment Act). The target was the sole teacher laid-off (for economic reasons) performed before the Act was withdrawn in the 1990's and before this case was resolved (banana republic justice).No compensation has been paid which includes pension rights. In effect, the applicant is technically still an employee of the School District albeit an unpaid one as no compensation - including pension rights - has been paid.

b) It does not require an assessment of the activity of the Employer, the Union or the courts of law in resolving this issue. Regrettably, the Supreme Court of Canada failed to hear this matter on four occasions: (i) 1997 - universality of unions (ii) 2004 - ultimate remedy (iii) 2016 - 36883 (Quebec) disclosure (iv) 2016 - 36993 Saskatchewan. Hence matters of inclusive fraud were forwarded to the executive powers of the Prime Minister where they await a response. It should be noted that no oversight body has seen fit to address myriad charges of fraud in this case including the RCMP.

3) So what is this application requesting? A definition of this case as it relates to imposed legislation and the oversight rights of the courts thereto. In this particular case, is BILL 35 a 'stand-alone' piece of legislation, as the Employer would argue, or is it 'in addition to' the collective bargaining rules without replacing any part of those rules? Recognizing the applicability of the collective bargaining rules implies court oversight although in 1995, Justice Spencer of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that only the Union could represent my interests implying court oversight powers.

4) Whether the court has those powers as they relate to lay-off is debatable which is not being questioned here. What is being questioned here relates solely to compensation which this applicant submits is owed to him whether it is under the provisions of BILL 35, the collective bargaining agreement, or any other court mechanism related to compensation for lost employment.

5) The Employer refuses to recognize court oversight. The Union joined the Employer in obfuscating any settlement that I might reach. The British Columbia courts expelled this litigant in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge' forcing me into other venues across Canada marked, as noted above, with a high degree of irregularity from both the Employer and the Courts.

6) Most regrettably, the British Columbia Office of the Attorney General did not see fit to intervene in order to break this log-jam.

7) This Application and the Question raised was one the Union raised in arbitration in 1986 but was ignored by the arbitrator (later ruled patently unreasonable for not showing a causal factor in the arbitration which the court quashed.

8) This Question was raised by the Employer (Ottawa Superior Court 13-59060 McKinnon j. April 23, 20140 and 'puzzlingly'September 15-2014 where the second decision did not reference the first but was a factor in derailing a subsequent hearing scheduled by me (source of fraud allegations by me). Again, McKinnon j. made no reference to the jurisdictional problem.

9) Consequently, neither the Employer nor Union have any argument against this court deciding the question as to court oversight on this issue which explains why I have not listed them. Further, the alleged fraudulencies of the Employer in 500 word 'Book of Authorities' go unchecked by various authorities in this case which, in any event, does not add or detract from the question at point here. In brief, the Employer is accused of 'gaming the system' in order to get out of their obligations of paying compensation which, after a Manitoba ruling, I may hopefully pursue this matter further in British Columbia. The actual Manitoba court response is secondary as the goal is to eliminate the jurisdictional dichotomy which, to date, the justice system has failed to do.

10) The legal principle involved above is central to not only employees, but to employers as well. For example Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister (whom is being kept apprised of this case) is subject to similar imposed legislation such as the carbon tax to which he objects.

11) Normally, such as the following warning should never be given in a court of law but I do here from painful experience: Beware of a 'grey eminence' exerting pressure on a Chief Justice in order to get a desired result from an appointed judge. Regrettably, provinces across Canada are routinely losing their credibility as a consequence of court identification with the conspirators in this case.

(signed) ROGER CALLOW - APPLICANT MAY 25, 2017