JUMP TO HOME PAGE

JULY 2016

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - JULY 10-2016 

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 11 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there is one of two SCofC hearings slated (QC-refused a hearing June 09-2016) & SK with a pending hearing in P.E.I. and Alberta with renewed activity in Ontario as the Justice System gets ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocking legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century. This edition is focused on SCofC 36993 (SK) yet to be heard.

 

QUOTE: 'Like General Wilkerson said - the war the generals didn't see coming ends up swamping them.'

The Ascendant  Drew Chapman

 

               

 

 

July 10-2016                                               3 pages

TO: Supreme Court of Canada               FROM: Roger Callow  Plaintiff  36993 (SK)

ATTN: Jill Haché (Registry)                                     1285 Cahill Drive E #2001

301 Wellington Street                                            Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Ottawa. ON K1A 0J1                                               tel./fax (613) 521-1739

(613) 995-4330                                                        e-mail: the callows @ gmail.com

 

Re: Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.) 36993

 

MESSAGE:

1) In 1986, as the senior teacher concerned, I changed from the Union lawyer and successfully appealed the arbitration devoted to my 1985 lay-off for economic reasons under the auspices of the neophyte B.C. imposed BILL 35 before B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Mary Southin.

2) Southin j. labeled the government appointed arbitrator to be patently unreasonable when she quashed the arbitration leaving this target in what has turned out to be a 30 year state of limbo where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights).

3) Compensation is contingent on the correctness of the lay-off.

4) The Board has always argued that the terms of BILL 35 determine the correctness of the lay-off; not the courts or any other body such as the B.C. Labour Board. They lost that point on Appeal of the Southin position but then proceeded to do nothing on a re-ordered arbitration as Southin j. failed to re-instate salary continuance which exists apart from judicial findings. Currently the Board owes 30 years of back salary plus interest on that account.

5) More importantly, the School Board meeting notes of June 1985 (the disclosure sought by me in every court for 30 years) were returned to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them' placing the justice system, it is asserted here, in a position of being black-mailed.

6) What Southin j. saw in those notes is what I witnessed firsthand in the fraudulent arbitration; namely, that I was the target of a 'sweetheart deal' in which the government was hi-jacked (BILL 35 only ever used against this victim) and the judiciary was co-opted in a legal debacle which extends to the current day.

7) This purported sub rosa agreement between the employer/union was that as long as the Employer did not have to pay compensation; they would protect the court cover-up in this matter. Other accounts detail the dreary 30 year course of legal events which extend on four occasions to the Supreme Court of Canada under Chief Justice B. McLachlin.

8) The thrust of the Employer's argument lies in the accusation that this plaintiff is being frivolous and vexatious and they quote in 36993 from Justice McKinnon (ON Superior Court 13-59060) with a bombastic quotation which found its way onto page 1 of the anti-employee Ottawa Citizen (April 29-2014) which refused me my 'right of rebuttal' (which follows on McKinnon's  diatribe here): "Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario lacks jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow's litigation must be stopped. Now."

rebuttal (unpublished): 13-59060 was not laid by me; rather, it was laid by the Employer in Ontario in a bid to discuss all elements with which I was in complete agreement. McKinnon's rebuke, therefore, was misplaced as it should have been against the Employer. As it was, he ignored the Employer's request to discuss all matters. He did not condemn the Employer (double standards) for bringing this matter to court. Indeed, he even assigned them costs.

09) The above debate is in the process of being re-filed in Alberta by me as plaintiff.

10) The sorting out of ON's judicial malfeasance at the Appeal Court of Chief Justice George Strathy has fallen to a third ON Attorney General, Yasir Naqvi,  which appears to be going the way of the former two A.G.'s by Naqvi being MIA (shades of the 'Innes Jail debacle' under him).

11) Both QC and SK courts were advised to stay away from the compromised McKinnon Decisions. There were two such on the same event on April 23-3014 and September 15-2014 the second making no reference to the earlier one; the latter used by Harris & Co in the Megaw j. lower court. The Law Society of SK repeatedly refuses to acknowledge that a proper investigation is necessary before 36993 can be heard. There is still no response to date.

12) " It is submitted that: 2. No matter of public or national importance is raised by Mr. Callow." Harris & Co. No doubt that is what the Ministry of Justice (David Hansen) on June 18 believed when he claimed the government would not apply for intervener status on the constitutional question. Perhaps Hansen knows something about outcomes unknown to me.

13) The ultra vires nature of BILL 35 has never before been questioned although the term current demonstrated ability is undefined in the Act and in law in general. As BILL 35 did not displace any provisions of such as the collective bargaining rules; it can be claimed to be ultra vires and, as such, any action flowing from it is null and void.

14) There was no constitutional extension to 36883 QC voted not to be heard by the SCofC on June 9-2016. In effect, the SCofC covered up one of the most deleterious court actions in QC jurisprudence which does not mean that the Prime Minister should not use such as the 'peace, order and good government' or 'notwithstanding clause' against them. Quebecers are left with finding justice on the streets until remedial action is taken by P.M. Justin Trudeau.

15) The action in QC was a 'false flag' on my part to do two things; one, to establish the existence of a grey eminence with access to the back doors of chief justices across the land and two, to acquire the disclosure notes as a preamble to any other legalities as no court may give an honest evaluation without seeing what it was that Justice Southin tried to cover-up and for which the Justice System for 30 years has been effectively black-mailed on that account.

16) Currently, I am being thwarted in PEI courts in seeking to attempt to gain the Union's copy of these disclosure notes. In brief, as a Union client, I should have access to such information.

17) 3 more SCofC judges no doubt are being pressured to sacrifice their reputations along with Justices Wagner, Coté, Cromwell (r.) by failing to call for disclosure in 36993 SK prior to any examination of this issue on any level.

 

Yours truly, 

                       

(Roger Callow) The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System  employescasecanada.ca

 

enclosures:

1) Justice Minister Raybould-Wilson (whom should have assigned an investigator to this case but is probably under the thumb of the PMO  f.613-954-0811)

2) P.M. Trudeau - MIA with his failure to use executive powers  f.613-941-6900

3) RCMP - (Montreal Fraud Division File 2016-58755) appear to be awaiting to be told by 'the powers that be' to investigate this mammoth fraud. (mail service when available)

4) QC Appeal Investigative Court (Hon. Jacques Chamberland) f.514-864-7270  /  Premier Couillard f.418-643-3924  (SCofC 36883 rejected on June 09-2016 for a hearing)

5) SK Law Society f.306-352-2989   /  SK Appeal Court f. 306-787-5815 - 'surety' payment problem  / Premier Wall f.306-787-0885

6) PEI Superior Court (Union) - f.902-368-6123  court stalling in assigning docket number / Premier MacLauchlan  f. 902-368-4416

7) ON Attorney General Naqvi  f.416-326-4007 - to investigate Appeal Chief Justice George Strathy's 'loss' of appeal cases related to McKinnon's Decision(s?)

8) AB Court of Queen's Bench (Employer) - f.780-422-9736  court stalling in assigning docket number / Premier Notley f.780-427-1349

9) WV School Trustees f. 604-981-1001  /  Harris & Co. f.604-684-6632

10) Postmedia's Christie Blatchford / Ottawa Sun's Mark Bonokoski  by e-mails

 

N.B. At time of writing, SCofC 36993 has not been sent up to the 3 presiding judges

 

July 18-2016

TO: UPAC - Permanent Anti-corruption Unit (Quebec)

2525 boul. Laurier, Quebec, QC G1V 4Z6                              3 pages

FROM: Roger Callow - self-represented Plaintiff  500-09-025753 (Justice Therrien/Justice D. Goulet - Gatineau) 550-17-008208-157 (Montreal) 36883 (Supreme Court of Canada-rejected for a hearing on June 09-2016)

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001  Ottawa, ON  K1V-9A7 tel/fax: 613-521-1739

e-mail: the callows@gmail.com

 

MESSAGE:

1) Included in this account is a 4-page letter entitled: The Letter which hangs the Quebec Judiciary dated December 16-2016

2) The genesis of this 30 year unresolved labour case due to systematic judicial malfeasance has its source in British Columbia where senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow, was illicitly laid off in June of 1985 under the neophyte conditions of BILL 35 (since retracted before this sole laid case was resolved). No compensation (includes pension rights)- which exists apart from judicial findings - has ever been paid.

3) This target finds himself in the unenviable position of being placed in a permanent state of limbo contrary to the very concept of 'finality' found in any Justice System. That state of affairs happened when the arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed by the courts in 1986 where the arbitrator was ruled patently unreasonable.

4) There were many judicial attempts to get a hearing in B.C. which were continually thwarted for technical reasons by the judiciary. In July of 2013, this target was expelled from B.C. courts (Cullen Creed) for reasons best known to a judge forcing the matter into other venues including that of Quebec where the issue was limited solely to disclosure a topic which has been ignored by all QC courts in a highly irregular manner as outlined in the 4-page letter of December 16 noted above.

5) With the rejection for a hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada (June 09-2016) with no costs assigned; the issues rebounded on the oversight bodies in QC to resolve.

6) Premier Couillard was kept apprised of all court activity in this case as it unfolded. His failure to act and, subsequently, Justice Minister Trudeau, has left the Quebec Justice System in tatters where QC individuals must turn to the street should they seek justice.

7) Regrettably the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division File 2016-58755) decline to act in this matter of alleged criminal fraud. It would seem that the word of the P.M. (Senator Duffy case reference) is necessary to get them to move.

8) While much material abounds on the perfidy of the Quebec Courts in this case, the focus here relates to the collection of fees which the QC courts assigned to Lavery De Billy for the Employer. For this reason, I begin with my letter of July 13-2016 and the response of Vancouver's  Harris & Co. which oversees all aspects of this case.

Yours truly, (signed, Roger Callow)

enclosures:

1) Justice Minister Raybould-Wilson (whom should have assigned an investigator to this case but is probably under the thumb of the PMO . She should be watching to make sure that none of the SCofC judges, Wagner, Coté and Cromwell(r) ) sit on the second SCofC Appeal 36993 (SK) yet to be heard. Judges sitting for a second time in this case has been a problem in the past).

2) P.M. Trudeau - MIA with his failure to use executive powers .

3) RCMP - (Montreal Fraud Division File 2016-58755) appear to be awaiting to be told by 'the powers that be' to investigate this mammoth fraud.

4) QC Appeal Investigative Court (Hon. Jacques Chamberland) f.514-864-7270  /  Premier Couillard f.418-643-3924  (SCofC 36883 rejected on June 09-2016 for a hearing)

5) SK Law Society f.306-352-2989   /  SK Appeal Court f. 306-787-5815 - 'surety' payment problem  / Premier Wall f.306-787-0885

6) PEI Superior Court (Union) - court stalling in assigning docket number / Premier MacLauchlan  sent by mail

7) ON Attorney General Naqvi  - to investigate Appeal Chief Justice George Strathy's 'loss' of appeal cases related to McKinnon's Decision(s?) sent by mail

8) AB Court of Queen's Bench (Employer) - court stalling in assigning docket number / Premier Notley   sent by mail

9) WV School Trustees for Harris & Co.  sent by mail

10) Postmedia's Christie Blatchford / Ottawa Sun's Mark Bonokoski  sent by mail

 

N.B. At time of writing, SCofC 36993 has not been sent up to the 3 presiding judges

 

IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED MAN IS KING

 

P.M. HARPER now P.M. TRUDEAU

 

AS OF OCT.19-2015 (Federal Election)

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.'

 

 harper2 

                                                                                                A New Matey on the Ship

(' Something has to be terribly, terribly wrong with the courts to use the "notwithstanding clause"  S.H.')

 

July 13-2016  pp.04-05

 

TO: Harris & Co.  for the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver, B.C.)

ATTN: G. Litherland esq.

14th Flr. 550 Burrard St.

Vancouver, B.C. V6C2B5

tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632          sent 1 page by fax

 

FROM: Roger Callow  self-represented

1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739

 

MESSAGE:

1) Have you received any funds from the surety posted by me in SK? If so, how much?

             Response:__________________________________________________________

 

2) Did you make any application for these funds in SK? R. ___________________

 

3) Would you provide me with a list of all payments made by the School Board to various legal Counsel since July-2013 (Cullen Creed) in ON, QC, SK?

 

R._________________________________________________________________

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

 

Please respond within 15 days. Thanking-you for your assistance.

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow)

to which Harris & Co. replied on July 14-2016:

'In response to your fax of July 13,2016, we advise that the amounts of $3,500 and $2,000 were paid out to our client from the monies you paid into Court as security for costs in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal proceeding. Those amounts were paid out pursuant to the attached decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.'

N.B. The SCofC Appeal 36993 has not yet been heard which could reverse that precipitate action by the SK court!...or has the SK Appeal Court already been told the intended outcome?

 

THE LETTER WHICH HANGS THE QUEBEC JUDICIARY pp.10-13

Court d'appel du Quebec

Montreal, December 16,2015

BY MAIL AND EMAIL    N.B. Heading only annotated

Mr. Roger Callow

RE: Callow v. Board of School Trustees

       500-09-025753 (Gatineau) / 550-17-008208-157 (Montreal Appeal)

 

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your inscription in Appeal received at the Court of Appeal on November 30, 2015, your letter dated December 14, 2015 and your Reply of Appellant to Lavery de Billy Motion to dismiss the appeal received on December 15, 2015.

 

Unfortunately, the documents titled Factum of the Appellant and Book of Authorities attached to your inscription in appeal are not filed in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters. Therefore, the Office of the Court will accept (my underlining R.C.) the filing of your proceeding as an inscription in appeal only.

To help you in that process, we urge you to consult the Checklist for the conformity of factum and an example of the Appellant's Factum on our web site at the following address http://courdappelduquebec.ca/en/.

 

Regarding your letter dated December 14, 2015, we inform you that the Court cannot fix a date for the hearing of the appeal at this stage. Indeed, the Clerk of the Court has not yet declared the file ready to be placed on the roll as the factums have not yet been filed.

 

Finally, we hereby advise you that your  Reply of Appellant to Lavery de Billy Motion to dismiss the appeal  was given to the judges seized (? RC.) of your file on January 18, 2016. Furthermore, could you please inform the undersigned if you will be present at the Court of Appeal for the hearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal presented on January 18,2016 by the respondent?

 

Once again, we strongly suggest that you contact a lawyer in order to protect your rights. The coordinates of the Quebec Bar Referral Services are 1(866) 954-3528

 

Yours truly,

                                                            Mtre Catherine Dufour 

                                                            Assistant Legal Coordinator

 

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS LETTER?

SEE employescasecanada.ca  JANUARY-2015 under JANUARY  19-2016

By the Plaintiff, Roger Callow

1) At first glance, nothing. The factum is incomplete so it has to be revised before a docket number is assigned...a common procedure.

2) So why was a docket number assigned to Lavery, de Billy to file a Notice to Dismiss with no reference in my account to any docket number being assigned. Collusion between Lavery and the Court is suspected.

3) How can de Billy request a dismissal of something that is not listed on file? Denying a negative is an impossibility, even in French Quebec (disclosure: my wife is French Canadian). Apparently the answer is the filing of a second factum by de Billy which omits the all important question as to why two judges acted in tandem on this case which the oversight bodies have failed to rule ever since my complaint dating from August 01-2015? Again, collusion is suspected, particularly as the judges for this January 18-2016 hearing are being notified ahead of time as to this most significant short-coming. It would appear as though the Office of the Chief Justice is instrumental in these machinations.

4) It would appear that de Billy is seeking to limit his Order to Dismiss to the second judge's (Goulet jsc) published Order as we have not heard from Justice Therrien as to when we can expect his Order. I wrote him on December 27-2015 to that end.

5) To be sure in a political trial of this sort, the QC premier and Prime Minister would be consulted... Similarly, any delay currently in the Employee's Case is a matter of providing time for the 'green light' to be given by Couillard and Trudeau.

6) Considering that both the QC Premier and Prime Minister were kept apprised on a daily basis of events leading up to the SK Jan. 18-2016 hearing, then the outcome  is to be construed as a directive from these two politicians.

THE JUDICIAL RECORD

7) The myth of precedent law which is the backbone of our legal system in which case studies are referred to as giving guidance in trials, is just that in Canada, a myth. The assumption here is that the presiding justice has given due process to the arguments for both sides and writes a judgment reflective of that process which appears on the judicial record sans the arguments from the litigants. In effect, the judge oftentimes drowns one of the litigants; usually the weaker one whom lacks power to appeal his decision, through the process of omission...Remember the prayer: Forgive me my sins for what I have done and what I have failed to do.

8) This is what is happening here as Lavery, de Billy, in his second Factum would make no reference to the existence of two judges on the same case nor other negative reflections on the law in this case clearing, he hopes, the judicial path for a clear registration of the (false) situation in a 'clear' manner.

9) What has actually happened here is that the court has willingly committed themselves to a fraud by approving 'dismissal' and in such manner that precedent law has been imperiled.

PRECEDENT LAW

10) Strike 1 for the Justice System is the failure to acknowledge that this writer is in a state of limbo without a judicial ruling in a labour case from whence compensation may flow. That is why this is a 'standing case' enabling me to directly challenge the Justice System for 'finality' is the keystone to our courts of law.

11) Strike 2 is the failure to acknowledge that this litigant has been expelled from B.C. by the 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2013 in an unresolved legal matter forcing this case into other venues under the laws of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, and transference. Judicial findings on this level are sloppy such as with Megaw j. of SK Queen's Bench being appealed CACV2783 to be heard February 09-2016; again with a specious second factum by the Employer trying to sweep judicial excesses under the carpet similar to QC de Billy. McGaw treated the SK list of applicable rules for case handling in an 'exclusive' fashion; that is, as soon as he collected those items under inherent jurisdiction that suited a narrow interpretation of his decision, he ignored the other rules which encompassed handling an out of province case. He found the reference to natural justice 'laughable' . There was no reference to transference which courts are obliged to do in matters such as this: e.g. if B.C.is the appropriate forum for this case, they must take those steps which would permit this litigant to re-enter the B.C. legal forum.

12) Strike 3 is the refusal of 10 separate court systems and 40 judges to order Disclosure; namely those secret memo notes dealing with meetings of the West Vancouver School Trustees in which the discussion of BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed. The quashed arbitration would suggest that no sanction was given by those Trustees to the lay-off of this writer in June of 1985 as quoted in the Superintendent's letter to that effect. In brief, that is fraud and the court system is guilty of cover-up as this disclosure is a precursor to any legal enquiry which is why I am on record as saying that failure to disclose in both QC and SK will lead to an automatic appeal.

13) The judicial excesses are so extreme here, that these proceedings make a mockery of precedent law, which is the 'legal billable time nonsense' in many cases for the legal fraternity. For example SK Appeal Court's Ottenbreit j. turned the law on its head in a surety hearing by declaring the matter a 'special case'. I can only wonder about the calibre of the 3 SK Appeal Court justices assigned by Chief Justice Robert Richards. Ottenbreit j. is a harbinger of justices sidetracked from traffic court where they have taken one too many gavels to the head.

THE 'LOW DOWN'

15) The School Trustees would dearly like an end to this case as it has destroyed Canada. To that end, they are willing to pay $6-1/2 million dollars in settlement if the court orders them to do so which it won't for the courts do not want to be blamed for 30 years of procrastination. The B.C. government, considering their nefarious role in this caper, would be honour bound to bail out the School District.

16) To this end, the Employer is 'playing both ends of the stick against the middle' by, on the one hand, feeding me the information by which I may pillory the courts while on the other hand, 'setting up' legal firms in Ontario and Quebec. They lost Hicks, Morley et al in Ontario and are highly unlikely to get another legal firm there. Lavery, de Billy was also sucker punched and has compromised themselves, the QC Justice System and through it, the entire Justice System of Canada for their caper will be known clear across the land. Canadian Jurisprudence will never be the same with the QC court dismissal on Jan. 18-2016.

17) I am trying to get Employer SK  representation for the Appeal on Feb. 09-16 as an investigation of B.C.'s Harris & Co. is being conducted by the B.C. Legal Society at the behest of the SK Legal Society since Harris & Co. is domiciled in B.C. Transgressions in SK, I submit, should be examined in SK by interests familiar with SK laws which the B.C. Legal Society is not.

18) SK Premier Brad Wall is being kept fully apprised of developments in that province.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU - a personal message

19) Considering that your reputation is irreparably tarnished along with that of QC Premier Couillard until such time as you expel QC Appeal Justices, Chamberland J.A., Marcotte J.A., Parent J.A. from the bench; you might consider three courses of action: a) In World War II, Canadian lads bombed the bejeezes out of good Germans in order to expel the heinous Nazi Party. Perhaps those self-same good Germans can return a missile or two on Canada and  its corruptocracy;

b) Canada led the legal battle against apartheid in South Africa with S.A. making a return visit to our native Indian reserves as a yardstick to our hypocrisy. Perhaps it is time for them to visit the 'Outlawed Canadian' on yet another visit.

 c) Should the Pope accept the P.M.'s invitation to look over his shoulder while he apologizes to our native people; perhaps the Pope may return the favour by looking over Trudeau's shoulder while the P.M. apologizes to the 'Outlawed Canadian'.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc P.M.  J.Trudeau / Premiers QC P. Couillard / SK B. Wall / SK Appeal Court

RCMP - Montreal Fraud Division

 

 

July 20-2016

 

TO: Yasir Naqvi - Attorney General of Ontario

PERSONAL

McMurtry-Scott Building

720 Bay St. 2nd Floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2S9

 

FROM: Roger Callow - Plaintiff (Ottawa)

1285 Cahill Dr. E. Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

e-mail: thecallows@gmail.com

  

12-54944-Maranger j. decision Nov. 01 -2012 Superior Court (S.C.) / (Divisional Court Appeal)DC12-1872 Jan.23 hearing / 13-58607-Oct. 04-13 hearing date cancelled by McKinnon j. /  13-59060 -C. McKinnon j. (S.C.) April 23-2014 decision / 14-61592 -R. Scott j. (S.C.) Sept. 23-2014 no decision

 

Acknowledgment of 'Operational Support Branch' letter dated July 13,2016 to my letter dated July 10,2016 is made  (Your File No. MC-2016-4737)

 

To whom it may concern;

1) As the targeted plaintiff in an unresolved labour issue dating from 1985 with its genesis in B.C. where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights), I was forced to turn to other legal venues when I was expelled from the B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to a judge' (Cullen Creed July 2013); particularly Ontario where I have resided for the past 28 years and undergone a number of inconclusive  court appearances marred by judicial malfeasance yet to be adjudicated  by the various oversight committees including the Ministry of Justice under the previous two Attorney Generals.

2) In the above regard, the new appointment of Y. Naqvi appears to be plagued with the same type of incompetence which he endured from his previous portfolio regarding atrocious conditions in the Innes Jail.

3) In brief, this leading 'standing case' requires the attention of a qualified individual prepared to do the necessary research as this unresolved Ontario matter has had grave consequences on courts in other venues including the Supreme Court of Canada.

4) It is not the purpose of this letter to include extensive correspondence on this issue; rather, it is to focus on the costs outstanding along with the compromised application of the frivolous & vexatious rules by Justice C. McKinnon (13-59060) which has plagued this case, particularly in Quebec and Saskatchewan where the Supreme Court of Canada was called in to resolve this matter. Currently the SK bid (36993) is still outstanding.

(a) 12- 54944 (Nov. 1-2012 Decision) As Scott ignored the issues due to his desire not to get involved with B.C. legal matters, the case was appealed. The costs requested by Hicks, Morley et al were labeled as exorbitant by the judge and a much lower cost assigned. The matter was settled out of court for a much lower fee again.

(b) DC-12-1872 (Jan. 23-2013 hearing) The Appeal of Maranger's Decision saw this speculative addition: Ontario courts are not empowered to overthrow decisions made by judges in other provinces. As with the Maranger Decision, I questioned the costs assigned in the Appeal Court of Ontario. Continual obfuscation by the Registry of Chief Justice George Strathy necessitated a request by me for an extension of time which, in turn, saw that request dropped off the radar of the Appeal Court. Oversight bodies have been MIA in getting this one back on track. In a 'specious' surety hearing in SK in 2015, Harris & Co. - without providing specifics  nor was he asked for any - claimed that I had an outstanding legal bill of $22,000 in Ontario. No such invoices were ever received by me and the West Vancouver School Trustees never responded to my request about these 'fictional' fees. That is one thing to be investigated by the Ontario Ministry.

(c) 13-58607 was launched by me but never heard as it was quashed by McKinnon j. with a supplanted 13-59060 by the Employer in which they asked that all matters be discussed with which I was in agreement. McKinnon j. ignored that request preferring to impose a frivolous & vexatious measure against this Respondent as well as costs thereto. He canceled 13-58607 forcing me to launch 14-61592 held before Justice Scott on September 23-2014 where, for a first time, I was able to give a complete response to the frivolous & vexatious provisions in writing.

(d) This is where the entire Ontario judicial structure went off the rails. Hicks, Morley et al arrived at court (without giving a notice of appearance) and slapped on the judges desk a second decision written by McKinnon j. on Sept. 15-2014 which made no reference to the First Decision of April 23-2014. I was not privy to that Sept. 15 second Decision. I remonstrated with Scott j. regarding this illicit performance but to no avail as he grabbed the new Decision and told me to address that only. To add insult to injury, he made a 'stay of proceedings' so that when I attempted an Appeal, the Appeal Court declined my factum as I did not have a lower court decision. The matter was referred to the oversight body for both judges (Canadian Judicial Council which has never responded to any complaints that I have made) and the Ontario Legal Society which never acknowledged the complaint. One consequence was that Hicks, Morley et al dropped representation of the Employer.

(e) The failure of the Ontario oversight bodies to investigate spilled into QC and SK.

(f) In QC, Lavery De Billy for the Employer based 95% of their case (according to one judge) on the iniquitous McKinnon j. frivolous & vexatious charge which I had warned them against doing. That matter, among many judicial inequities, found its way to the Supreme Court of Canada (36883) which rejected the matter for a hearing on June 09-2016 forcing further pressure to be applied to the QC court oversight bodies which I did on July 18-2016 (SEE web employescasecanada.ca) with a filed complaint to UPAC (Permanent Anti-corruption Unit).

(g) In SK, Harris & Co. filed only the Sept. 15-2014 McKinnon j. Decision in an apparent bid to sanctify McKinnon 'through the back door'. Again, I remonstrated with the lower court before Megaw j. about accepting this apparent fraudulent Decision which became a major point in my rebuttal in SK Appeal Court as reflected by my reference to the SK Legal Society who refuses to examine Harris & Co.'s  'illicit' actions.  The Appeal Court arranged beforehand with Harris & Co. without my knowledge and certainly without my consent, not to have him address the court thereby obviating the fact that Harris & Co. dropped reference to the McKinnon j. frivolous & vexatious in their Appeal. The Appeal Court awarded them costs for both levels of court.

(h) As collection of these costs would, under normal circumstances, necessitate a hearing thus opening the question as to the apparent fraud of Harris & Co., the Appeal Court Registry took the unusual action of sending the full amount of the debt to Harris & Co. from a surety I was earlier forced to post in order to get an Appeal Hearing which merely rubber-stamped the lower court actions. Again, the oversight bodies have been contacted without any response. The matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada (36993) and, in addition to the disclosure action requested for the past 30 years, is added a constitutional question. Similar to QC, I refuse to pay any court ordered monies until the alleged perfidy of those courts is properly examined. (The return of the SK surety monies to court is requested considering that the SCofC has not brought down any judgment.)

ACTION REQUIRED

5) For ON Attorney General, Yasfir Naqvi, to assign a special official to deal with this convoluted matter reflecting negatively against the court structure of Ontario

 

Yours truly, 

 

 

(Roger Callow)

 

cc Susan Sherring (Ottawa Sun) / J.M. Raybould-Wilson / P.M. Trudeau

 

JULY 26-2016

          WHY I PREDICT A GENOCIDE FOR ISSIS

     When Jesus set himself up as the 'son of God' thus usurping the 'Jerusalem Church'; the conclusion was clear for the Church; Christ had to go and it fell to the reluctant Romans to do 'the dirty deed'...but it worked. Without their leader, the movement dispersed in other forums; primarily in terms of the gospels.

     When Napoleon borrowed that great American invention of a Republic without a King and did very well out of that concept; Napoleon enlisted the Frenchmen in similar nationalistic zeal to fight for France - under his leadership of course. All the crowned heads of Europe agreed on one thing - Napoleon had to go as they feared their own people setting up Republics. So Napoleon eventually went into oblivion and a French king ascended the throne once again.

     The caliphate is a concept currently without a leader and yet has a negative influence around the world for its non-believers. Hence nation states have decided that it has to go. But how to do it? The first step is to let European supporters flock to Syria only to flock back to Europe once they see the reality on the ground. Step two is to surround ISSIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria and deprive them of communication. Fallujah was the first major center to fall amid a high casualty rate for ISSIS. Currently Mosul is surrounded and according to one Muslim recently returned from there (because their infant daughter had a Canadian passport) no-one is getting in or out. A bloodbath is promised here for ISSIS which explains why the U.S. does not want any Western troops fighting alongside the locals. Rakka, the Syrian ISSIS headquarters is last and will be expunged from the map...and there will not be a peep out of the western media. Without the Caliphate, other rebellions in the World will become localized. In Africa, the French foreign Legion (a mercenary group of many nationalities) is the best equipped to deal with situations there. Canada should NOT go to Mali under a UN peacekeeping role (shades of Rwanda). (The U.S. never takes a peace-taking role for good military reasons.)