APRIL 2014
OPEN
LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.01-2014
(FORMERLY
OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS)
...TO
TORTURE CHAMBER
BY: Roger
Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com
(29 year unresolved legal
case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8
different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning
author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in
tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively
affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility
of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving
35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's Office due to the failure of P.M.
Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the
necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find
me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears.
QUOTES: 1) 'Unlike law, which prescribes hard rules, culture works as a soft
constraint. The law enforces punishment after a crime has been committed, while
culture, by nurturing morality, prevents crimes from happening in the first place.
A society's morality is often embodied in its culture. EPOCH TIMES
2)
'In other words,
modern tyrants are more ascetically inclined, doing whatever is necessary, even
if morally or ethically unsavoury, because they are
acting impersonally to create a stable, peaceful and prosperous society (or as
they tell themselves). Robert
Sibley Ottawa Citizen
MESSAGE
1)
As the innocent target of a West Vancouver, B.C. School Board
illicit lay-off in 1985 (unless the sorcery relates to the whistleblowing
of fraud on the part of an administrator), I have been kept 'sailing on a sea of red tape never to put
into the port of judgment' in this kafkaesque tale.
2)
Without a judicial decision, no compensation
(includes pension rights) has been paid.
3) In August of 2013, I laid #13-58607 in Ottawa Superior Court to
contest the 'Cullen Creed' from B.C.
Supreme Court which was laid in July, 2013 barring this litigant from any
court for reasons best known to a judge as he did not quote any pertinent laws
nor take argument. The Ontario courts powers under 'inherent jurisdiction' and
'natural justice' were cited.
4)
In the above document, I accepted this
loathsome document as judicial abandonment of my claim so that I could collect
back salary plus interest which belongs to me apart from legal outcomes (as I
should always have remained on contract until a resolution was found).
5) Rather than filing a response, the
Employer filed a new action #13-59060 setting
a hearing date before the main action, it is submitted here, as a means of undermining that main action. That hearing is slated for Apr. 10-14 (2
hrs) The main action is slated for May 15-14 (2 hrs)
6)
This matter has been referred to the Upper
Canada Law Society which has yet to reply to a Third Request. (Running an action
in tandem is a no-no. Seeking to undermine a
priori the central action is tantamount to running a court within a court)
7)The thrust of the Employer's argument
is two-fold: To have the plaintiff labeled 'vexatious' as a means of excusing
the court from addressing either the iniquity of the Cullen Creed or the
financial obligations of this Employer to me.
8)
Without the compliance of the court and the
silence of the anti-employee media, the Employer cannot get away with this
nonsense. Silence from Canadian professional teachers is due, no doubt, to
Union leaders wishing to hide that dirty little secret of 'sweetheart deals',
completing this picture of silence (although there is nothing to stop
individuals from creating an internet 'viral' campaign).
9) In that regard, the Canadian courts
are reduced to protecting the judicial register. In short, if a legal matter is
like that proverbial tree falling in a forest with no-one to hear it; it does
not make a sound in this analogy. Unfortunately, the Judicial System remains
corrupted beyond all recall as Canada has now sunk to Third World status due to
this unresolved legal case.
10) Leaving a litigant in legal limbo
goes against the grain of all law for there can be no process without
judgment...except, it would appear, now in Canada. Not to mention, of course, habeas corpus and 'ultimate remedy'
(money must exchange hands under the 'collective bargaining rules'.)
cc Law Society of Upper Canada
ON Trial Lawyer's
Association
SCofC Judge R. Wagner
Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak (no
copy-waste of time)
P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May
( " )
CBC's Peter Manbridge
Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant
Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield
Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)
Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall
OPEN
LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.06-2014
(FORMERLY
OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS)
BY: Roger
Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com
(29 year unresolved
legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been
through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize
winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice
System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle
negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the
credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government
irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is
now addressed to the Prime
Minister's Office due to the
failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now
awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national
importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears.
CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS
QUOTE
'Nadon ruling latest blow to P.M.' O.C.
Mar.22-14 A2
'...Some,
such as Justice Department whistleblower Edgar Smith, are openly questioning
who in government is minding the constitutional store.
"If
the attorney general, the Prime minister, Governor General and the chief
justice of the Supreme Court aren't, it's pretty pathetic that they rely on
citizens," Galati said.
'...People said to me in that case (subject material unnecessary to make this point),"They've been doing it for 60 years,
how can it be wrong?" I (Galati) said,
"Nobody's challenged it." '.
'Ultimately, private citizens must be prepared to step up and challenge
government and the courts, Galati said Friday...the constitution belongs to the
citizens and it's there that we find our protection....'
'...It's
true, it's often the citizens that bring up these challenges. It's just
pathetic that the court doesn't recognize that the citizens who are grieved by
these constitutional breaches shouldn't have to be the ones to pay to fix the
constitutional breaches.' (my bold print)
MESSAGE
1) So P.M. Harper was conveniently 'out of country' with the SCofC rejection of
his SCofC choice of Justice Nadon.
Draft dodger Pierre Trudeau was also AWOL on the first Remembrance Day of his
prime ministership although a very nervous Pierre
turned up on the second year. All this 'tempest in a tea pot' could be due,
more than to any other reason, to catty SCofC judges
annoyed with retired ScofC judges, Ian Binnie & Louise Charron, for
being 'bought off'.
The lone SCofC minority position on Nadon
appears closer to the truth.
2) It would seem that Hicks,Morley et al for the
Employer would borrow a leaf from the P.M. with his 'retro-active' legislation
in the Nadon matter (which is actually anarchy by any
other name and also rejected by the SCofC in the Nadon matter).
3) In order to escape their fiduciary responsibilities in the Employee's
Case (no compensation -includes pension
rights-has been paid in 29 years contrary to any number of laws in this case),
the disingenuous approach of Hicks, Morley on April 10 #13-59060 Ottawa
Superior Court 10 AM will seek to
operate retroactively in thwarting the main hearing on May 15 #13-58607 laid
prior to #13-59060.
4) By having this employee declared 'frivolous
and vexatious', they would seek to undermine the May 15-2014 hearing in an
'a priori' manner which is counter to
good judicial processes.
5) I say 'good' because I have been receiving nothing but bad processes from
over 8 separate courts in Canada including the SCofC
justifying why my moniker is the 'Outlawed Canadian'.
At least Harper got
into court; I can't as I am persistently rejected on 'judicial grounds' in this
unresolved legal case leaving me in
limbo.
6) More recently, I have sent a second request (March 24-14 of Aug.30-13)
of Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, to the PMO on a constitutional crisis
much more significant than the Nadon challenge.
7) Other than the SCofC, judicial opinions may be
appealed. Even here, the rejection of this case for a hearing by the SCofC in 2004 created
a ground breaking precedent as with all other cases, an upper court rejection
leaves a lower court decision in its place. As there was no lower court
decision extant in the unique circumstances of the Employee's Case, the SCofC rejection was tantamount to making 'no legal
decision into a legal decision'. That contradiction hits at the very basis
of the credibility of any justice system.
8) Many rejections have been received over the past few years by the SCofC Registry on judicial grounds; basically an interpretation
of Section 40 which I believe Registrar Roger Bilodeau
has deliberately misconstrued as a means of protecting SCofC
judges for any hearing would of necessity reveal their cupidity in the 2004
ruling.
9) Over Registry rejections, there are no appeals which explains my letter
(2nd Appeal March 24-2014 to PMO). In short, I submit that Bilodeau usurped the role of the SCofC
judges creating a constitutional crisis of no mean proportions. Why have judges
at all if the Registry is the final arbiter of judicial matters? Bilodeau, it is submitted here, radically altered the
function of the role of the Registry as an administrative body to that of a
judicial one.
10) In the matter of the Employee's Case, both the judges and registries have
made themselves de facto agents for the interests of this particular Employer,
the Board of School Trustees in West Vancouver (S.D.#45) creating a
constitutional crisis without equal.
cc Law Society of Upper Canada
ON Trial Lawyer's
Association
SCofC Judge R. Wagner
Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak (no
copy-waste of time)
P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May
( " )
CBC's Peter Manbridge
Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant
Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield
Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)
Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall
PART II
HE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO THE LAW
SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA IS INCLUDED AS REPLY 25A (#13-59060 APRIL 10-14
HEARING DATE & #13-58607 MAY 15-14 HEARING DATE). A COPY IS ALSO ENCLOSED
TO HON. MADELEINE MEILLEUR, THE NEW ONTARIO A.G. WHOM I HAVE ASKED TO APPOINT
TOP JUDGES TO THESE HEARINGS (NO CHIEF JUSTICES NOR DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICES NEED
APPLY).
OPEN
LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.07-2014
(FORMERLY
OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS)
BY: Roger
Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com
(29 year unresolved
legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been
through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize
winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice
System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively
affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility
of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving
35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's Office due to the failure of P.M.
Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the
necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find
me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961
trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed).
Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in
the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not
working.
QUOTE: '...prosecutors of attempting to deflect from the weakness of
their case by laying a smokescreen of irrelevant evidence, ''creating an
elephant in the room that is impossible to ignore...." While
the above quote by lawyer Michael Edelson is on
another unrelated case; the legal tactic used here by the 'prosecutors' is
similar to the Hicks, Morley (for the Employer) approach recently appealed to
the Upper Canada Law Society.
JUSTICE SYSTEM OF CANADA 'UNSAFE AT
ANY SPEED'
REBUTTAL TO LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER
CANADA' LAW CLERK, ALDONA-MARIA BIGOS (Mar.26-14) Your #2014-135167
Question posed to the Law Society: May a Defense Council, rather than responding to an
action, launch instead their own action and arrange to have it heard before the
main action laid by the Plaintiff with the aim of derailing the main action?
1) As a general rule of
law, two actions affecting each other may not exist in tandem.
2) The specious argument
by the Defendant would no doubt be that such is not the case as the one they
subsequently laid takes precedence in being heard first.
3) This type of logic
cannot hold. Two judges operating in two separate courts are provided with
different materials and therefore are not able to give a judicial finding from
one court taking into account that their particular decision impinges on the
actions of the second court.
4) As such, Hicks, Morley
et al for the Defense are perverting the course of justice in a significant way
and will forever change the practice of law should Defense Counsel be permitted
to 'run a court within a court' with this type of practice. In short, there
would be bedlam if it got known that the Upper Canadian Law Society (UCLS)through their inaction has
sanctioned this insidious practice.
5) Note that the objection
does not apply to lodging a concurrent Defense or a Defense in the future. It
is solely a protest against acting a
priori to gain unfair legal advantage in court.
6) For this reason, I have
requested $30,000 in maintenance fees from the court of #13-59060 being heard on April
10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court. (The main action #13-58607 is slated to be heard May 15-2010 in the same court.) I cannot imagine Hicks, Morley
taking a precipitous action such as this without prior complicity with the
court.
REBUTTAL:
7) I suppose that I should
count myself blessed that I received a two page tome signed with both names
from the UCLS as the usual response from extra-legal personnel is a phone call
from the youngest clerk in the office labeled Beth, or Indigo, or Jennifer just
saying 'no go'. Some courts do not even respond keeping the fees to apply, no
doubt, to their Xmas fund.
8) In the opening
paragraph of her 'omnibus bill' , clerk Aldona -Maria
covers the full gamut of the case concluding with this line: 'You feel that you may have been denied
justice and you appear to be seeking the Law Society's assistance in this
matter.' (She neglects to point out
that without a judicial finding as earlier ordered by the court, no
compensation according to the collective agreement has been paid so, yes, I
'may' have been denied justice.)
9) 'After reviewing the information you provided, we (is this the
'royal we'?) have found that the concerns
you raise are not something that the Law Society can deal with. (Do you
mean that they are not competent to deal with the question outlined in 1-5
above?) We can only act on complaints
that provide information suggesting a lawyer has done something contrary to our
Rules of Professional Conduct. (Ah, now we have it. No legal counsel
has ever pulled this stunt before hence there is no rule on it...way to go,
UCLS!
10) In her redundant
letter where she 're-invents the legal wheel' , Aldona-Maria
points out the inability of the UCLS to intervene in matters within the purview
of the court which, as any idiot can see from #1-5 is not the question that I
asked of the UCLS.
11) A copy of this account
is being forwarded to the new ON Attorney General, Madeleine Meilleuir whom I have tasked with finding out what happened
to an appeal for costs (DT-12-1872) to
Osgoode Hall which appears to have fallen into a
black hole.
12) It should also be
known that her ineffective predecessor had been more of the problem than the
solution in this case in Ottawa. If ,as the current A.G., she sanctioned that
silly letter from the Premier threatening legal action; Ontario voters have
much about which to be concerned. Only amateurs threaten legal action.
13) Much is made in
letters such as the above that I am not represented by legal counsel implying that
bureaucracies speak only to other bureaucracies. My 'uniformed' reaction?...a
fool and her legalities are soon parted if the media hop on this one.
14) A copy of this letter
is included to Opposition leaders Horwath and Hudak to 'put their
money where their mouth is' on an issue of national importance as the
credibility of the legal system is more important than one evasive UCLS letter.
cc ON Trial Lawyer's Association
SCofC Judge R. Wagner
Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak (Wynne
copy to A.G. Meilleuir)
P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May
( no copies - waste of time)
CBC's Peter Manbridge
Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant
Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield
Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)
Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall
APRIL 09-2014 oral
outline for #13-59060 April 10-14 Ottawa Supreme Court
1) Point 3 of
'confirmation letter' of April 07-14
2) Three Questions which
must be answered in court today:
a) Will the court assign maintenance fees
against Hicks Morley in the sum of $30,000 for an allegedly fraudulent act?
b) Will the court insist that Hicks Morley
responds to this question which underlies the whole case? 'Is the Employer
bound to pay compensation to this employee? If so, how and when would that be
done?
c) Will the court produce its own prima
facie case as to the legitimacy of the "Cullen Creed"? Those findings
are instrumental in the main case running on May 15-2014. Should the court
quash the #13-58607 hearing on May 15-2014 as per the request of Hicks, Morley,
I will ask the presiding justice to recuse
herself/himself from the proceedings.
General Response
1) I have no problem
accepting the Employer's factum as a defense to #13-58607 H.D. May 15-2014
2) I have every problem
with Hicks, Morley filing a separate action - as opposed to a defense - in a
bid to pre-empt the hearing on May 15-2014.
3) In #13-59060, I submit
that Hicks, Morley is seeking to inveigle the court into committing a most
egregious act; namely to cancel #13-58607 on May 15-2014.
4) I must have a
definitive answer today as to questions b) and c) above before leaving
court as this is the only time the three
parties will be present to discuss this issue.
5) Noted here is that
there is no causality included in either the MacKenzie
Creed (currently being dealt with at the Supreme Court of Canada) and the
Cullen Creed nor is there any connection drawn between the two judgments. This
current appeal relates solely to the Cullen Creed of July 23-2013. All other matters are
extraneous.
OPEN
LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.13-2014
(FORMERLY
OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and U.S. NEWS)
BY: Roger
Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com
(29 year unresolved
legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been
through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize
winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice
System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle
negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the
credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government
irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is
now addressed to the Prime
Minister's Office due to the
failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now
awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national
importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. I feel like
Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe
at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may
become standard fare in the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the
current system is not working.
QUOTES:
1)
'...The judicial
system is fragmented and riddled with corruption, often falling to Canada's sectarian-based
power sharing politics. Political interference in the judiciary is common, and
courts are accused of succumbing to political pressures.' April Fools! The
country actually named was Lebanon.
2)
'The point is
that we have been starting with the answers, while real questions go begging.
It seems to be more than past time to ask the hard questions'. Letter to Editor writer (the source of
all conspiracies and subsequent cover-up)
CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM - UNSAFE AT
ANY SPEED
A COMPARISON
BETWEEN CONRAD BLACK'S 'FIGHTING RESTRICTIONS ON DOING BUSINESS' AND
MY'FIGHTING RESTRICTIONS ON GETTING COURT ACCESS'
1) On the
one occasion I wrote Black on his Chicago courtroom loss due to placing his alter-ego, 'Fast Eddy' to
present his case to a lunch-bucket jury; he wasn't amused. Fast Eddy was not
his first choice; I should check out my facts first, he retorted.
2) The above
reveals why Black is a testosterone filled Alpha male while I am quite happy to
be relegated to the 'woodwork' as a Beta male as I have no desire to lord it
over my bretheran and, in my experience, many who do
are poorly equipped for the job.
3) This
latter point is salient in that Black made many enemies with his control of the
Chicago Tribune whom, I suspect, were only to ready to entice the Federal boys
in on the promise of successful RICO charges which could enrich them. Those
racketeering accusations didn't see daylight (as they should not have).
4) We are
both blackened by the Justice System; Black as a victim and myself as a target.
5) Rightfully
or wrongfully (as Black would have it), he is a convicted felon in the U.S. and
due to financial arrangements between both countries, his status in Canada is
negatively affected.
6) As a
laid-off teacher for economic reasons (which have never been tested in law for
29 years before 8 courts and over 30 judges) where no compensation has taken
place (including pension rights) I am an innocent target (unless 'whistleblowing' is a crime) left in limbo .
7) The
parallels relate to the court procedures applied to the both of us:
a)
Both us of are accused of 'relitigating' cases which
permits the courts to duck out.
b) Both
of us are blocked with access to the courts or tribunals; Black to do business
in Canada and me to finalize an
unresolved legal labour case.
c)
Both of us are being victimized by a system which has a pre-made decision in
which
the authorities have carte blanche
powers. Black's lawyers voice that concern:
'We
hope and expect the panel doesn't have a pre-conceived notion of Black's
fitness to
be an
officer and a director. It's not Black's fault the story is long and
complicated.' Peter
Howard Lawyer for Conrad Black
d)
Both of us are objects of authoritarian tunnel vision. In Black's
case, 'This issue is not
about what Black has done right,'
argues the OSC staff lawyer, 'it is what he has done
wrong'. In my case, my lack of
success before many courts seeking to finalize a court case
that a judge once argued back to
litigation after quashing the original arbitration
labeling, as the judge did, the
arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable' was due to
systematic judicial culpability as,
it is submitted here, the court became a defacto
agent
of the Employer to gain through the
back door what they could not gain through the
front door. The Employer did not
fulfill that court Order leaving me in limbo thanks to
over 30 judges and 8 courts. The
employment scene has been completely altered.
e)
Black as a manager has one thing that I, as an employee, do not have; media
coverage.
8) Whatever
the outcome for Black, the Canadian
Justice System remains basically intact; not so for the Employee's Case as Canada reverted to Third World status in 2004
in failing to hear my case under the 'ultimate provisions' label. Recent court
contretemps are leading to the complete collapse of the Canadian Justice
System...but don't expect to read that in the anti-employee media.
- o -
April 21-2014
TO: Hicks
Morley et al
ATTN: C. Hofley esq.
sent by fax only
613-234-0418 2 pages including this one REPLY REQUESTED
FROM: Roger Callow
phone/fax 613-521-1739
MESSAGE:
1) It would
seem that the alacrity which Justice Maranger Of
Ontario Superior Court managed to deliver his judgment (later appealed) in an
earlier hearing (3 hours! ...not difficult if the judgment had been pre-written
which it could very well have been as it did not bear witness to arguments made
by me in court) is not to be matched by Justice MacKinnon from Superior Court
in a hearing launched by you on April
10-2014 (#13-59060) predating my
#13-58607 on the same issue slated
for May 15-2014...a nice 'tandem'
match; if not a bent one. (now known as the 'Hicks Morley caper')
2) Whatever
prompted you to file this allegedly fraudulent action is beyond me. You not
only embarrass the court services but also your client.
3) Asking
that the Court to declare me a 'vexatious' litigant in this unresolved legal matter, to cancel the
hearing set by me in a previously laid action on the same issue and finally, to
ask the court to confirm - for the first time in 29 years - that the Employer
does not have to pay any compensation; is quite a mouthful.
4) All three
requests are doomed to failure; the first two because they cannot obviate my
original hearing as, if need be, I merely lay another one. The third request is
amazing in that Justice MacKinnon gave a long song and dance about not
involving the Ontario courts in this issue. How can he make a judicial finding
regarding the efficacy of the original lay-off in B.C. under these
circumstances? If he does, as I stated in court, the appeal would not refer to
the usual 'judicial bias' in appeal, rather to 'judicial malfeasance'...placed
in my 'bad books' in your words to which I replied; 'You mean I have good
ones?' (certainly not for the courts or politicians in this issue.)
5) However,
be that as it may, it is recognized that in the April 10-2014 Hearing, you
requested that all issues be
discussed; something I was not prepared to do in #13-58607 as the Ontario courts are not competent - as confirmed by
Justice MacKinnon - to involve themselves in such as the propriety of the
initial lay-off. That proposition, it would appear, belongs to the Supreme
Court of Canada which badly screwed up by failing to hear this issue in 2004. 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law'
was the candid opinion of my legal advisor at that time; a rather
preposterous notion when one thinks about it.
6) However,
due to your importune action, perhaps some good can come out of this
imbroglio as now both of us are prepared
to see the matter defined for all issues: (Was that your intention? Does
your client know what you are up to?)
a) Only the
Supreme Court of Canada is in a position to deal with all issues hence an
appeal of MacKinnon's Order - no matter what it states - must be made to the
Appeal Court at Osgoode Hall who will be asked by me
for a 'by' in order to avoid yet another 'speed bump' on the way to the Supreme
Court of Canada where I have a number of submissions on file. I'm ready to roll
if you are...or not.
b) In the
event #13-58607 is to be held, will
you now agree to handle this as a 'Special Case' before 3 judges now that we
can agree on the question? (I agree that you may claim more billable time with
more hearings.): "The plaintiff and the defendant both agree that the
question of compensation underlying this case is based on the employee claiming
that compensation - in whatever amount - is due while the employer claims that
no compensation in this case is due to the employee." That point on your
part was explicit in the April 10-2014 hearing.
7) As a
side-note, you claimed in your factum that I had not paid for my most recent
claim ordered by the Ottawa Divisional Court
(DT12-1872) P.S. Both of us
had a good laugh, didn't we, about 'Justice Rip Van Winkle' who fell asleep in
that earlier one hour hearing as I so aptly pointed out.
8) In fact,
I invited you to dip into a surety in B.C. courts frozen to me for which I
would give my full support; the difference one way or the other to be made up
later (better you than seeing these funds end up in the Judge's Xmas Party
pot!) Regrettably - and again you made no reference in your account - to the
fact that an appeal of these costs disappeared down a black hole in Osgoode Court in Toronto. New A.G. Meilleur
was asked to investigate. I am sure she never read the letter in reply from a
department factotum who misconstrued this issue. Perhaps you can make yourself
useful in this regard by making enquiries as no-one speaks to me; at least in
language I am permitted to understand.
9) Please respond
soonest regarding that matter of making this a Special Case before three judges
as I need to include your answer in a REPLY25A.
I would like to see an end to this issue as much as the Employer would... the
judges and 'billable time lawyers' may be another matter.
Yours truly
_________________
Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'
cc Board of School Trustees-West Vancouver by fax: 1-604-981-1001
- 0 -
Right of Reply to Ottawa Citizen's article (April 26-2014) by Andrew Duffy
entitled "Ontario judge lowers the boom on 'vexatious' Ottawa
litigant"
Plaintiff has spent 29 years treating courts like
'all-you-can-eat buffet,' judge fumes.
1) The
impression I receive from this article is that Duffy was handed a 'dirty
biscuit' by his editor with this admonishment: 'Don't publish the web site
address' which, incidentally, is www.employeescasecanada.com
2) As noted
in his article, I have been a common sight with my placards in downtown Ottawa
for the past 10 years pillorying the legal and political bureaucracies. Judges
knees only turn to jelly when they hear the tom toms beating outside the
courtroom door. Being a Joe nice-guy doesn't work as I and many other groups
have found out much to our chagrin.
3) To reduce
this story to its conclusion which I have labeled the 'West Vancouver School
Board Trustee Final Solution' now to be copied by disreputable employers across
Canada: "We are not dismissing you from your position; rather we are
laying you off and if you do not sign a $1 settlement, you will not collect
your pension."(as is the case here). Would the 'right to work' brigade
ever love that one.
4) Unions
understandably do not want to finance court cases as win or lose, they are
still left with a legal bill; oftentimes a sizable one as in the case of the
original arbitration which was quashed by the court with the arbitrator ruled
'patently unreasonable' in 1986.
5) The
effect of that judicial quashing above was to conceal School Board personnel
perjury along with their lawyer's role of counseling fraud. It also left me -
as it turns out as the targeted person - in a permanent state of limbo where no
compensation has been paid including back salary which exists apart from
judicial outcomes.
6) To cut a
long story short, the fault lies with the Supreme Court of Canada which failed
to hear two vital challenges in this case: the 'universality of unions' (1997)
and 'ultimate remedy' (2004) under the collective bargaining rules. The Preamble to the 2004 Hearing is
particularly insightful as to the conspiracy of the judicial process.(as opposed to the
original conspiracy of an imposed BILL 35 of which Ontario teachers are
only too aware with their own recently imposed
BILL 115)
7) Former
Chief Justice Antonio Lamers,(d.) (current) Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin refused that first hearing
raising the question of the value of Union membership in Canada; particularly
in the face of a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union which I submit
was the case here. I have listed McLachlin's name in
subsequent appeals as having 'a conflict of interest'.
8) Of far
more damaging consequence is the abuse of the 'ultimate remedy' provision of
the collective bargaining agreement - in essence - contract violation in which
money must change hands in whatever amount. That's when I submit Canada was
reduced to being a Third Class Nation.
9) One point
that Justice McKinnon and I are in complete agreement is that Ontario is not the
place to deal with this issue, particularly now that the Employer has admitted
for a first time that they do not have any obligation to pay any compensation
as well as requesting that all issues be placed on the table.
10) The
proper place is, once again, the Supreme Court of Canada. Regrettably, the good
judge had no suggestion as to how I could get there particularly, as he stated
in his finding, his decision could not be appealed. Of what is he afraid? That
a Third presence in the Supreme Court of Canada would bring into juxtaposition
their earlier perfidy in this issue?
11) A major
drawback for my legal standing is that the courts, in my case, have claimed
that only the Union may represent me (at least in B.C.); a union which has
deserted this case and refused me the right to continue at my own expense. Even
in hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his name before execution. In
this analogy, I would have to respond, 'West Vancouver Teachers Association'.
Hence I require intervenor status; again, something
only the Supreme Court of Canada can grant now that the Employer has finally requested
that all issues be placed on the table for now the Union must be represented.
12) Space
limits why I have referred this matter regarding Justice McKinnon to the
Judicial Council of Judges although the explanation may be found on my website.
He has good reason 'to fume'.
Yours truly
Roger Callow 'The Outlawed
Canadian'
fax: 613-521-1739
'What must be
avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the
law' Justice Estey St. Anne-Nackawic
Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal
(This Appeal denied
in June/04 – explains why Canadian Justice System imploded)
This preamble
makes an unusual request regarding habeas
corpus
The
correctness of the lay-off of teacher Roger Callow from his teaching position
in West Vancouver in 1985 has never been properly tested. That fact flies in
the face of the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and yet
over 30 judges up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen fit
to insist that Mr. Callow be provided the key evidence of School Board meeting
notes pertaining to the matter of his lay-off. To that extent, the judicial
system is a part of the conspiracy charge which Mr. Callow has laid against the
Teachers Union and the School Board and yet, due to the nature of the law, can
only be referred to obliquely. Should the Supreme Court of Canada proceed on
the frivolous and vexatious
charge by which Mr. Callow is estopped from being
granted a legal hearing without insisting, in this most unusual of cases, for
the necessary disclosure of
evidence to be provided to him; namely, the School Board meeting notes of 1985,
then all Canadian law is at an end. Conversely put, it may be asked, how may
Mr. Callow defend a negative which is a logical impossibility; namely, that he
was not indeed laid off by the West Vancouver School Board in June of
1985?
There are
good grounds to conclude that Mr. Callow has been the object of a massive
conspiracy to deny him access to the laws. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin, in quashing the arbitration favouring the School
Board claiming, as she did, that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable in his
conclusion favouring the School Board, had stated that ‘nowhere did the Board
express a willingness to lay off a teacher under the new statute’ implying the
fraudulency of the School Superintendent’s letter to that effect. Mr. Callow
from his experience from the condemned arbitration in which no School Board
member was called to the stand to explain how an increase of 16 teaching positions – any number of which Mr.
Callow was capable of holding – submits that, while knowing otherwise, he is
being denied any hearing which would give him an opportunity to voice his
dissent. Certainly no such reference to the lay-off was publicly made in the
monthly report in June of 1985 where the additions were noted in arbitration.
No mention is made of any lay-off.
Considering
that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that all
material pertaining to the lay-off of Mr. Callow be made available to the court
and no doubt serves as the basis of her conclusion, then we submit such
information would be the property of the Union and therefore should be made available
to Mr. Callow even though the court has decreed that the Union has full control
of this matter as far as questioning the matter of his lay-off. Both the Union and School Board steadfastly refuse to
hand over this vital information. Indeed, it would appear that it was the
laying of a conspiracy charge
against the two parties which prompted the current frivolous and vexatious charge by which those two have
successfully evaded having to produce the vital ‘missing link’ information. The
failure of the two Appeal Court decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court to address
that concern is at the heart of this appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Simply put,
how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow
access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court
has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original
arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any
other arbitrator calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to
do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is
a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.
"The
curse of the world is not decisions taken, Blake reflected, it's the decisions
shelved, bought off, sidestepped." War Dance Tim
Sebastian
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919-2000) '...Every government must accept responsibility for the rights of the citizens within its own jurisdiction. Canada as a whole suffers when any of her citizens is denied his rights, for that injustice places the rights of all of us in jeopardy.'