CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MAY 01-2016
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' www.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 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. 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 oversight bodies.
THERE ARE NO OVERSIGHT BODIES IN CANADA
1) Every day we hear and read how the politicians are going to be more accountable when in fact we see that over and over the same lack of transparency is missing from the Canadian bureaucracies due to leaders who thwart the laws with impunity. The Justice system is no exception as seen through the Employee's Case Canada (E.C.).
2) Until our system removes leaders such as Chief Justices and Justices (at least 10 in the Employee's Case), Canada and Canadians will remain in a legal cesspool where individuals will have nowhere to turn for justice. PLACARD: A PARADOX / CANADIAN LAW IS BROKEN YET PLENTY FIXED AS IT IS
3) Due to the failure of Parliament and the media, that task in the E.C. falls to the executive powers of Prime Minister Trudeau. To date he has done nothing. PLACARD: WHAT THE FATHER WOULD CREATE / THE SON WOULD DESTROY (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982)
4) Central to the notion of a viable Justice system is its finality. Judges, for example, may not pick up the legal ball and go home leaving a litigant in limbo as has happened in the E.C.
5) The Judicial Record includes Judicial findings on which precedent law is based which in turn, is the backbone of 'due process of the law'. But what if that Judicial Process is badly flawed as illustrated by the E.C? That has been the experience of the E.C. over 30 years in 10 different court systems and 40 judges in this case where the judges act as an agent for the Employer in the E.C. 'Due process' is more likely to mean 'duly processed' in this matter of systematic judicial abuse. No bureaucracy can withstand the charge of being 'systematically' deficient.
6) Without disclosure, no court has any validity. For 30 years, the courts have refused disclosure in the E.C. making a mockery of our Justice System. This shortcoming is widespread in the Canadian Justice System. Recently, for example, a frustrated Quebec judge released 5 Hell's Angels due to the multi-year failure of the Crown to produce disclosure. (Note that he didn't feel that he could apply to the Chief Justice to gain his ends.)
7) Perjury is commonplace in our courts but goes unpunished. In the E.C., sufficient evidence exists (but is not disclosed) to charge Employer personnel with criminal fraud. Unfortunately, the RCMP await the nod of such as a Prime Minister before acting in political cases; the Senator Duffy case being one such case in point.
8) The flip side of the Duffy exoneration of all counts is the complete failure of the oversight powers in the Senate and Parliament...need I say more?
9) As matters stand, Canada no longer has a viable Justice System largely due to the collapse of the oversight systems leaving 36 million Canadians wandering in the legal desert looking for that 'burning bush'. P.M. Trudeau - to mix analogies - would fiddle while this legal bush burns to the ground.
What's it all about, 'Alfie'? (...if you are old enough to remember that movie....)
10) The Employee's Case is about the biggest legal calamity in Canadian history. The 'loosey-goosey' rules of the Canadian Senate recently revealed by the Senator Duffy criminal trial (in which he was exonerated) look like a school-yard picnic compared to what is going on in the Canadian judicial system in this case.
From time to time, the conspirators trot out the defense of frivolous & vexatious behaviour on my part or the jurisdictional dispute disallowing provinces to handle this matter. But what is a constant argument of theirs in law is labeled res judicata. 'Mr. Callow is merely relitigating matters which have already been settled' they bawl time and time again with the accompanying vigorous nod from the bench in agreement. "Which matters were resolved?" I parry, "as I still do not have a resolution as to the validity of my (illicit) teacher lay-off in 1985 from which compensation (now includes pension rights) may flow."
So why are the conspirators including the courts bent on glossing over this vital point in which this writer argues that he has been left in limbo by two Supreme Court of Canada rejections heard in 1997 (universality of unions) and 2004 (ultimate remedy)? Those rejections in 1997 consisted of Chief Justice A. Lamers (d.) / B. McLachlin-the incumbent Chief Justice / Cory. In 2004, those rejections were by Bastarache / Lebel / Deschamp. Only McLachlin is still on the current SCofC panel which is why I have asked her to voluntarily withdraw from being involved in this case (Rule 25C regarding 'conflict of interest' has been withdrawn under McLachlin).
The reason I submit that the 'Eminence Gris' is so paranoid in his pursuit about this case explaining his 'open back door' policy with the Offices of the Chief Justices across the lands, is that another approach to the SCofC where a docket number has finally been assigned against Quebec, highlights the fact that no such docket number was assigned for the earlier two SCofC hearings. Hence no response was received from the Respondent Employer. The effect of that debacle is that my claim to being left in a permanent state of limbo is non-existent in this type of kafkaesque legal world as nothing shows on the judicial record. That is a level of fraud unequaled in the annals of legal jurisprudence. It is a concept beyond the capabilities of NDP leader and lawyer, Thomas Mulcair and his NDP Party and beyond the comprehension of the anti-employee Canadian media with their national boycott on this lead story negatively impacting 36 million Canadians.
This whole mess has fallen into the hands of Trudeau 'the younger' and the longer he vacillates, the deeper the problem becomes...LIES GROW BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, OVER TIME
11) What Canada needs - and hasn't got - is a Donald Trump. What we have is a Donald Duck.
cc Rt. Hon. J. Trudeau P.M.
CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MAY 08-2016
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' www.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 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. 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 duality = duplicity
THE HYPOCRISY OF DUALITY IN THE EMPLOYEE'S CASE
1) The notion of duality as a means of duplicity is as old as the hills or the Janus figure above...'two-faced' captures the idiom well.
2) Two-faced West Vancouver High School Principal, John Williams wrote two Professional Reports on the single entity relating to senior teacher, Roger Callow, in 1985; one 'Positive' and the other 'Negative', only to file the 'negative' one. I caught him out in that fraud.
3) Two-faced B.C. Deputy Minister of Education and former West Vancouver High School Principal where Williams had worked under him, Jim Carter, reacted to my 'whistleblowing' complaint by arranging BILL 35 to deal with 'lay-off for economic reasons' in a bid to fire this whistleblower.
4) Two-faced government arbitrator, Louis Lindholm, converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs adding Callow as the necessary 17th. He was condemned by Justice Southin of B.C. Supreme Court as being 'patently unreasonable' when she quashed the arbitration.
5) With this litigant left in limbo, he returned to B.C. Supreme Court in 1995 before two-faced Justice Spencer requesting that the 'should' return employment be altered to 'must'. He could, alternatively, have followed through with an order to re-arbitrate, his only other option. He ducked both actions by ducking out declaring only the Union could represent this litigant in an obvious 'sweetheart deal'.
6) That action placed an end to the collective bargaining procedure and the Union Movement for if one of two lay-off victims finds himself on the losing end; there can be no recourse in law.
7) That two-faced conclusion saw its way ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC)in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers (d) / incumbent Chief Justice B. McLachlin / Cory whom refused to hear this Appeal in an undocumented court case and hence does not exist on the Judicial Record (which in turn is the basis of all precedent law and hence the Justice System itself).
8) A second undocumented SCofC rejection in 2004 (Bastarache / Lebel / Deschamps) on the grounds of 'ultimate remedy' (there must be 'finality' in law) heightened this two-faced fraud to unprecedented levels.
9) In 2013, two-faced Deputy Associate Justice of the B.C. Appeal Court, A. Cullen, expelled this litigant from B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to himself'. That's anarchy.
10) The first external court appealed to was the Federal Court of Canada which on two occasions over the years under two-faced Chief Justice, Paul Crampton, re-routed these cases intended to go before an Ottawa judge to be decided peremptorily by a Vancouver Prothonotary with appeals before a single judge rather than the Appeal Court. Both those levels of hearings were held in secret.
11) The second external court (5 hearings) in Ontario have been hung up by the two-faced Appeal Court Registry under Chief Justice George Strathy. Neither Strathy nor the Attorney Generals (two under Wynne gov't.) responded to complaints on this level nor did Peter MacKay, the Tory Justice Minister.
12) The Employer launched a case asking the court under two-faced Justice, C. McKinnon, to sanction the Employer's claim that they did not owe any compensation money to this Respondent. McKinnon ignored this request and muddied the waters by writing two different judgments - one on April 23-2014 and a second unauthorized one on September 15-2014. That is fraud on the highest level.
13) Next in line were the two-faced Justice Systems of Quebec and Saskatchewan which are the subject of SCofC Appeals.
14) When the QC hearing judge ran into trouble fulfilling the Employer's requests with a hearing judge; a second judge was assigned to re-open the case and file a Decision without mention of the first judge. Now that is a novelty; particularly as the Appeal Court ignored that duplicity in disposing of this case which promises to change how law is practiced in Canada.
15) In SK, the Employer quoted the September 15-2014 bastardized ruling of Ontario's McKinnon finding and is the source of the SCofC challenge over that province in which the Appeal Court was marked with a number of irregularities.
16) Throughout these 30 years of hearings is the request of disclosure by this litigant for the meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Board in 1985 regarding the dismissal (illicit lay-off) of senior teacher, Roger Callow. While the above challenges focused on the Employer, the challenge in Prince Edward Island is on the Union copy of those meetings which belong to this party as a matter of client right. P.E.I. is waffling.
17) This entire case has been characterized by nothing but janus-faced conspirators.
A) May 11-2016
Ottawa Sun columnist Michel Mandel 'Vindication? Not so fast...Let's not pretend Ghomeshi's the victim here' p. 5 (dismissed CBC announcer for alleged sexual exploits found innocent of criminal charges on 3 accounts with a 'bond' being signed for a fourth case now cancelled)
QUOTE: 'The law's a farce, sonnyboy. You can plant evidence and suborn witnesses and make sweetheart deals with the prosecution. The only laws we're really interested in making stick are the laws of contract - because if commerce doesn't work we're eating tree bark instead of bread.' Cassidy Morris West
1) At my ripe old age of 75, I had never heard of the notion of 'rough sex' until the Ghomeshi case although someone close to the scene suggested it is far more common than one might think among both men and women.
2) Oh, Michelle, but Ghomeshi is a victim of the red-necked media as was Senator Duffy and this writer in his 'teacher lay-off in 1985 for economic reasons in a legal case which still remains unresolved hence even pension rights along with any compensation are being withheld. Let's face it, the anti-employee media pillories individuals permitting the institutions a free pass.
3) As a writer, Michel, your career would be at an end in Canada should you attempt to tell the other side of the story in the employescasecanada.ca although I offer to print it here on my web site along with this letter should you wish to put your head on the chopping block.
4) Former P.M. and father to the present P.M., Pierre Trudeau, claimed in the 1970's that the influence of the average back-bencher in the House of Commons did not extend further than the street in front of Parliament. Today, that claim may be made against the media whom wind up gossiping with each other - albeit high level gossip - because they are not willing to seriously challenge the communications Department of Companies or government as that is where their next job resides when they get the chop from their news employment. As to going to the 'source' for stories?...forget about it....
5) As to the Ghomeshi Case, much can be said as to the legalities which is not found in the media. I give the Employee's Case as a legal measuring stick here in this regard.
6) The big loser is the Union for whether their client wins or loses, they are stuck with the legal costs. In Ghomeshi's case, that would be considerable. For this reason, I submit that all dismissals or lay-offs have some level of collusion between employers and unions (sweetheart deal) as both wish to avoid the costs of litigation. Individuals are victimized to that extent.
7) As a father with young children in 1985, I could ill-afford the specious arbitration which the arbitrator permitted to go twice the allotted time limit. But that was the point of BILL 35 (the Roger Callow Act as one Union lawyer labeled it) with its own method of adjudication which ran an end game around the Union. Local Union former presidents along with the West Vancouver Superintendent, it is submitted here, talked the School Trustees into sanctioning the lay-off on these grounds to get rid of a 'whistleblower'. Unfortunately for them, the parent Union, the B.C. Teachers Federation could ill-afford to be seen calling BILL 35 the 'battle of all teachers' without defending the single teacher against whom the Act targeted. Hence they financed the arbitration which found, surprise, surprise, in favour of the School Board where the administrator that I had accused of fraud was also a Union member.
8) When I changed lawyers and the matter went to court, the shocked Union in this 'shot-gun wedding' decided to finance that Appeal which quashed the arbitration labeling the arbitrator as being 'patently unreasonable'. I was now left in limbo where I am to the current day.
9) The CBC, I submit, in agreement with the Union decided to pull a similar stunt by dismissing Ghomeshi without giving a reason in the dismissal notice as a means, it is submitted here, to circumvent Union representation. Unfortunately for the Union, publicity left them in the same position that I was in ; namely, what is the point of Union membership if employers can merely walk around collective bargaining rules? The Union delay to represent Ghomeshi, I submit, reflected their understandable reluctance to be involved.
10) Employers do not need to keep any employee...period. The question in law relates to compensation as every job must have a price tag attached (mine is currently $10 million).
Generally one week for each year of employment is standard with the average buy-out approximating 2 years; 4 years if the action is adjudged egregious or if other considerations such as future employment are involved. The CBC, in giving no reason for Ghomeshi's dismissal has exposed themselves to a large settlement for it is clear that their intention was to evade the collective bargaining rules; a basic concept in labour law.
11) As to the last 7 year-old Ghomeshi case proper. If the complainant had socialized outside of work prior or after the office incident; she would likely lose for criminal convictions must be of a high standard (keep in mind the Employee's Case is a civil action although judicial treatment is allegedly criminal). If not, it would not be difficult for the Defense-and I have seen this often in my case-to fabricate half-lies which would undermine any chance at a criminal conviction. Signing the peace bond exonerates Ghomeshi in terms of the law. To be sure, the Union stuck with these legal costs, is breathing one huge sigh of relief.
12) As to complainants to Human Resources of Companies regarding a manager, CBC is standard in procrastinating until the issue is forgotten...at any rate, past the time limit in which a police charge may be invoked. Knowing this, I leap-frogged the Union when I went directly to the Ministry of Education in Victoria with my allegations of fraud making the Union appear redundant...and that would never do.... That's why the West Vancouver School Trustees felt safe in involving themselves in this conspiracy. It also explains why the Judicial System of Canada in 10 separate court systems and 40 judges would rather fall on their collective swords than to ever produce disclosure regarding these minute notes of a number of meetings in June of 1985 regarding my lay-off as the Employer has successfully drawn the judiciary into compromising themselves in a conspiracy to a degree and extent without equal.
13) So, Michele Mandel, as a 'former fan whom never wants to hear from Ghomeshi again'; I can sympathize with your sentiments which, after all, is all the news media calls for. The real challenge functions on a much higher plane as I have attempted to show in this letter.
'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' employescasecanada.ca
B) May 11-2016
North Shore News
126-15th St. East
North Vancouver, B.C. V7L 2P9
firstname.lastname@example.org sent by e-mail
Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System employescasecanada.ca
1285 Cahill Drive #2001
Ottawa,ON K1V 9A7
REFERENCE: Supreme Court of Canada (363883 - QC) & (363993-SK)
TOPIC: Legal 'Sureties' and fraudulent financial transactions
1) Your pithy articles regarding my unresolved illicit teacher lay-off in June of 1985 under the conditions of BILL 35 adorn my web site under the heading of RED NECK MEDIA.
2) In your best 'heavens to betsy' manner in one article, you note that the court ruled that the West Vancouver School Trustees should not have laid off this teacher and that no more taxpayers dollars - $10,000 - should be spent on appeal (which they lost). 'Let the duly elected Trustees do their job' you opined, which under the circumstances appeared to include 'running a job' over this targeted victim.
3) Well, if it is ill-spent taxpayers money in West Vancouver that concerns you, then have I ever a job for you! Read on.
4) At a 'surety' meeting in SK recently called by the Employer, I was dinged for $8,000 as a surety by Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit if I wished my lower court Appeal to be heard. I say 'dinged' because the good judge overturned the laws on surety as a 'special case' hoping, no doubt, that I couldn't or wouldn't pay. I paid.
5) Of interest here is that Harris & Co. referred to unpaid legal bills in that surety hearing which I denied and for which they produced no evidence nor were they called to produce such evidence by the court. For example, they claimed that I owed a $22,000 debt to Hicks, Morley et al; apparently for a hearing before a 3-person Divisional Court in Ottawa. An earlier debt to them was settled for 1/6 their request after Judge Maranger at the lower court called their charge exorbitant. I appealed the Divisional Court charge to the Appeal Court of ON where it disappeared 'down a black hole'. Oversight interests ignored my requests for investigation. Further hi-jinks by Hicks-Morley in succeeding cases led to my complaint before the ON Legal Society which did not meet with any acknowledgment although that Hicks, Morley dropped representation of the Employer. I did not receive any bill from Hicks, Morley raising the question in a letter to the WVST (Feb. 11-2016) as to whether or not, they paid that bill.
I received no response.
4) My question here, for the sake of the SCofC Appeal is whether or not you paid such a sum to Hicks, Morley out of your own pocket. If so, Harris & Co. has mislead the court (once again in addition to the charge of irregularities at the lower SK court) in a most significant manner. A complete reply is therefore required from you to this point to be filed with the SCofC Appeal.
6) The SK Appeal Court hearing was marked by judicial irregularities now noted in the SCofC 363883 although they awarded costs to the Employer for both levels of court.
7) Collection by B.C.'s long-time Counsel, Harris & Co. which fronted the SK case will force a hearing by me in which the whole fraudulent nature of their conduct over the years (indeed, a separate Federal Court indictment refers to their representation as fraudulent) will be revealed...and that would never do.... Should Harris & Co. seek payment in SK from the surety funds, I will subpoena all legal expenses paid by the Employer in this case in all venues.
8) While no surety was posted in QC, the Appeal Court there awarded Lavery de Billy for the Employer all costs. Again, in the event that Lavery seeks payment, I will allude to the fact that as there was no judgment written by the hearing judge (a bastardized decision was issued by a second judge with no reference to the original case); I owe no money. As the Appeal by me was rejected as to incompleteness, I therefore do not owe any money on that account either. I do not recognize Lavery's behind-the-scenes manipulation to have a 'motion to dismiss' heard by the Appeal Court (which they did with no recognition of the duality-duplicity of the lower court) as obvious collusion between the court and Lavery. My point here is that fast buck legal outfits do not work for nothing. Did the West Vancouver School Trustees also pay Lavery de Billy fees for which they are not obliged to pay? If so, so much for more 'wasted tax dollars'.
9) A copy of this letter is being sent to the WVST and Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould as well as being included with other materials in the two SCofC files noted above as soon as I receive the Respondent Employer's Response to SCofC #363993 (30 day time limit).
'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' (Roger Callow)
CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MAY 15-2016
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' www.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 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. 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 'What a Judge Vaillancourt (Senator Duffy Trial) would do' as opposed to the 40 minions over 30 years appointed by various Chief Justices in Canada to date.
QUOTE: '...The justice system is an imperfect tool, but it is better than the lynch mobs of an earlier era.... Ottawa Citizen editorial April 26-2016 A8 comment Not by much it isn't when it can be shown that the justice system is in the business of lynching such as the Employee's Case(Canada) = systematic judicial abuse
1) To dispose of the case mounted by the Respondent Employer/Union to date which the courts have seen fit to 'rubber-stamp' without conducting 'due process'; the following definition applies. 'Mr. Callow is merely re-litigating matters which have already been decided (res judicata) and, as such, he is merely being 'frivolous and vexatious'. Which matters have been decided are never defined nor - and here is the significant point - are the Respondents ever asked by the court to give such a definition. In brief, the elephant in the room is that this is an unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid. In short, the above flies in the face of the very definition of jurisprudence which demands of finality.
2) So how would a Justice Vaillancourt conduct a hearing? By demanding that the Respondents act accordingly:
a) For 30 years, the Respondents have failed to produce disclosure; the meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Board meetings in June of 1985 where they discussed at great length the lay-off under the neophyte BILL 35 (became law on July 01-1985 whereas Callow's lay-off letter is dated June 28-1985). Those memo notes were returned by Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration in 1986 because 'she did not use them'. They must be produced now as there can be no proper judicial definition of this case without them. In brief, if there was no fraud entailed (which I submit there was), then one level of compensation applies. If there was indeed fraud, a second level of compensation applies.
b) The constitutional question relates to the relationship between 'imposed government legislation' and statute law such as the collective bargaining rules when the government legislation does not explicitly deny any part of statute law. In short, as Justice Southin asserted, BILL 35 was in addition to the School Act and was designed specifically to lay-off teachers where there was a need for economic reasons. The Employer argued that as BILL 35 had its own processes for dismissal, the Union was not involved under the collective bargaining rules. In brief, their representation of Mr. Callow was entirely gratuitous. SEE Employer letter to the B.C. Labour Board dated February 7, 1996 (web).
c) Hence was B.C. Court Justice Spencer in 1995 correct to dispose of this litigant's claim that as the Employer apparently abandoned returning to arbitration as so ordered by the court, ignoring Mr. Callow's request to alter the should to must return employment as Justice Southin earlier ordered (in law, a recommendation is to be followed up)? The alternative, as expressed by Justice Spencer, was to order the matter to be re-arbitrated. He chose, however, a third controversial course; to claim that as the Union had full control over a client, only the Union could represent this client. In essence, he gave court sanction to the sweetheart deal which spells the demise of the Union movement (the Union was not present at this hearing). All other B.C. courts held to this decision including the Supreme Court of Canada (Universality of Unions) which refused to hear this concern of national importance.
d) In July of 2013, B.C. Deputy Appeal Court Justice A. Cullen expelled Mr. Callow from B.C. Courts for 'reasons best known to himself' (SEE enclosed judgment or web). A Judge Vaillancourt would determine whether his actions were ultra vires; something all other courts studiously side-step. The legitimacy of that premise must be settled before any discussion follows in any of the following courts - Federal Court / ON Courts / QC courts / SK courts / PEI Court / Supreme Court of Canada.
3) In conclusion, while not excusing the Respondent Employer/Union from their role in this alleged conspiracy, they may mount any defence that they wish. What is not acceptable is that the many courts hearing this issue have bought into their arguments without conducting 'due process' of the issues involved. That is why this civil case is the lead legal case in Canadian jurisprudence and, as a standing case, holds the entire judiciary and accompanying bodies up to the glare of public inspection. All that is required is a break in the media boycott.
cc Justice Minister J. Wilson-Raybould
Cindy Blatchford - Postmedia columnist
As a legal columnist, I do not envy Blatchford her task of witnessing some of the baser actions of mankind and reporting on them to suit the media editors demand for paper sales.
REFERENCE: Senator Duffy and Ghomeshi trials (O.C. article May 21-2016)
1) In your bid to provide an overview for the above trials, consider the following perspectives:
a) the traffic cop's answer to the speeding motorist: "I am well aware that others are exceeding the speed limit, sir or madam, but the point here is that the law does not punish wrongdoers per se. It punishes only those wrongdoers that it apprehends." (In short, there is some truth to the saying that 'the crime - in law at any rate - lies in getting caught'.)
b) 'First the punishment, then the crime' is the case in that finality is a cornerstone of our legal system. The law qualifies itself in this regard by stating; 'You have been found guilty by a jury of your peers'(or judge). Whether or not you are indeed and in fact guilty is not at question here as society must be seen as a functioning entity. If innocent, you're just plain lucky although you may be stuck with horrendous legal costs plus being demonized in the media.
2) Standing Cases:
All three of these cases qualify as 'standing cases' in law:
a) Senator Duffy; As the first Senator to be charged criminally for doing things that Senators have been doing since 1867 (e.g. the Senator, whom bank-rolled MacDonald's Pacific Scandal of the 1870's costing MacDonald the 1873 election, was never held responsible in a court of law) has modern counterparts such as no individual being prosecuted in the U.S. in the last big economic downturn in 2008 (rather, culprits ended up on committees advising the President).
Duffy guilty? heck yes, but other Senate figures are more guilty e.g. Senator Marjorie LeBreton. The real question was not the so-called bribery by Nigel Wright, the PMO officer; rather, it is 'who called in the RCMP?' In judgment, the judge gave an honest answer on the truncated case provided which obviously both lawyers had no desire in pushing. A lot was happening behind the scenes on this one.
b) Ghomeshi; Forget the 'rough sex' topic for a minute which, according to one person closer to the scene, tells me that is far more common than one might believe from both males and females. The key legal point, and it applies to the Employee's Case as well, is that the Employer did not give a reason for Ghomeshi's dismissal thus circumventing the Union who reluctantly defended him with little to show for their expenditures - win or lose. Perjury by witnesses seems to be supported by many in the public in their goals of finding Ghomeshi guilty. His success depended more on his record keeping (I can vouch for the importance here of having good records) than on a 'cake walk' for any defence lawyer on this one. BILL 35 had its own arbitration rules in order to circumvent the Union in which the Employer was not successful either when the court quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer.(The ruse here is to force the targeted individual to capitulate due to being unable to finance the court case.)
c) The Outlawed Canadian; Now for the big one. see employescasecanada.ca for 2016 events including 2 extant Appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada (36883 QC & 36993 SK) These are not the first appeals to the SCofC (1997 'universality of unions' and 2004 'ultimate remedy') in which the SCofC clerical department is currently seeking the docket numbers of those earlier cases which I do not believe exist although the names of the hearing judges are listed. Hence my claim of being in a permanent state of limbo in this unresolved B.C. labour case dating from my senior teacher lay-off in 1985 (no compensation paid to date) may not 'technically' exist on the judicial register in this kafkaesque legal debacle. The point that I would make here is that imposed legislation (B.C.'s BILL 35) has been used to supplant statute law i.e. collective bargaining rules, without stating that relationship which is a no-no and at the very heart of government-law court relations. As the targeted victim, unlike Duffy & Gomeshi; I am completely innocent in that I was laid-off solely on the grounds for economic reasons as Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) argued in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable... but try and find a court which will rule subsequently to give me finality on that one. I couldn't get one for the next 30 years.
3) In brief, the above 3 cases reflect major anomalies in the law; the first two finalized by honest judges, the latter one before over 40 judges still being held in limbo; the laws be damned. That's how the Canadian Justice system imploded. The value of the first two cases is that new attention is being paid to restructuring legal rules; the latter case is exacerbated by the many dishonest judges - as protected by an anti-employee media - whom are assigned the Employee's Case Canada in this lead civil case perverting the course of justice in a matter of systematic judicial abuse. The Justice System, therefore, is under the microscope, not this litigant or the prevailing laws.
The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System
CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MAY 22-2016
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' www.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 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. 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 'WALKING BACK THE CAT' in Ontario
A) 'The Canadian justice system is a complex beast that is often on trial itself, as those of us uneducated in law wrestle with its fairness in high profile cases. Ottawa Sun columnist Mark Bonokoski
B) 'Chief Justice Hewart said in a 1923 English judgment¸"justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." If not, the administration of justice is brought into disrepute.
C) "If you know your opponent and know yourself, you are certain to win every time." Sun Zi
D) '...With a secret like that, at some point the secret becomes irrelevant. The fact that you kept it does not.' Water for Elephants Sara Gruen
ONTARIO & THE 'EMPLOYEE'S CASE'
1) Ontario's Justice System boasts that only 3% of cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. So why have cases from QC & SK been appealed in the Employee's Case and not Ontario where the courts are just as wicked? The following is to be applied to the SCofC Appeals of QC & SK. In general, there is a flurry of systematic abuses against many bureaucracies these days, this one against the judicial order the biggest and worst of the lot.
2) My first foray into ON was before Justice Maranger whom didn't want to be bothered with a labour case with its genesis in B.C. He labeled the Hicks, Morley et al bill on behalf of the Employer as being extravagant. The matter was later settled for a fraction of their asking price.
3) The Maranger Decision was appealed to a 3-person Divisional Court (only ON has such an appendage which is not necessary in the Appeal process). This truncated hearing saw one of the three judges falling asleep in the one hour hearing which I so aptly pointed out. Again, Hicks, Morley applied an exorbitant bill which was appealed to the Appeal Court of Ontario by me on the grounds of costs alone.
4) The delay at the Appeal court level ostensibly due to the filing of correct forms was slow forcing me to apply to yet another court for an extension of time. From there, my action sank into a black hole which neither Chief Justice George Strathy nor two Attorney Generals saw fit to address this problem.
5) Other cases were launched by both myself and the Employer. 13-59060 was launched by Hicks, Morley et al before Ottawa Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon where I was the Respondent and in which they requested that all matters relating to my lay-off in 1985 be discussed. In that submission, they declared that the Employer did not owe any compensation.
I certainly did not object to such a discussion although I believed that the Union should have had representation at this trial.
6) McKinnon j. ignored the above request, introducing instead a 'frivolous and vexatious' charge against this Respondent. I never saw the specifics of that charge - prepared by court officials - until I read his April 23-2014 Decision which was duly mangled on page 1 of the Ottawa Citizen on April 28-2014. The Citizen refused my right to a rebuttal (reflective of the boycott of the anti-employee media on this 30 year unresolved issue). McKinnon j. further cowboyed a case listed for a hearing before 13-59060 by dropping it from the docket forcing me to re-register as 14-61592 which was held in October before a second (original) Federal Court judge in Ottawa Superior Court, R. Scott. In that action, I responded completely to the 'frivolous & vexatious' accusation of McKinnon j. The Employer did not file a 'Notice of Appearance' for the trial in October-2014.
7) On the morning of the trial, who should arrive but the Hicks, Morley lawyer. I told him that without special permission from Justice Scott to attend, which I would oppose, that he could not be heard. He gave me a wry expression. When the trial was announced, he bounced from his seat and practically ran to the bench with a sheath of papers which Scott j. eagerly accepted amid my most vocal protestations. I was ignored and handed the material which turned out to be a second Order from Justice McKinnon dated September 15 which, while similar, was not the same as the April 23-2016 official Decision. This whole debacle was reported to the Canadian Council of Judges under President Hon. B. McLachlin (never respond to my many complaints) and the Ontario Law Society which has never replied as well. Hicks, Morley continued to disappear from the scene and has not been heard from by me since.
8) The ON Appeal Court rejected my appeal of Scott j. on the grounds that he had instituted a 'stay of proceedings' dependent on some mysterious 'other considerations'. However he did write some notes which I have and some others which I didn't have but have turned up in the legal factum of B.C. Harris & Co. (the main legal representative for the Employer in B.C. and SK) at the 'surety hearing' before SK Appeal Court's Judge Ottenbreit whom over-ruled the surety laws by declaring this a 'special case'. I was forced to pay $8,000 surety under highly specious conditions to see an Appeal Court disaster for which I have called for the removal of those 3 sitting SK judges. Harris & Co. did not substantiate their claims of unpaid bills by this litigant nor did Ottenbreit j. request such information. I rebutted a loose claim of $22,000 owed to Hicks, Morley et al in that I had no such bill (by this time Hicks, Morley had deserted the Employer). A letter sent later to the Employer asked whether or not did they pay such a bill? There was no reply.
9) In terms of the McKinnon Decision, I specifically warned QC & SK courts from referring to this highly dubious action but to no avail. QC's Lavery de Billy based their case on this April23-2014 decision but ran awry of the judicial system and has since been referred back to the QC legal Society for an examination of their 'unethical' behaviour. Currently, I am requesting that the SCofC refuse to recognize this outfit until such an evaluation of their conduct is made.
10) In SK, Harris & Co. referred only to the September 15 'bogus' McKinnon Order in both the Surety and the lower SK court hearing before Megaw j. What their response to these charges are remain unknown as a pre-arrangement was made between the Appeal Court and Harris & Co. of which I was kept ignorant, not to speak at the Appeal Court Hearing. The judge refused my question to them as to whether they believed the Employer owed any compensation to me in this matter; which is a central tenet of this case. Consequently, and similar to Lavery de Billy, I am asking the SCofC to bar Harris & Co. from the court until the SK Legal Society conducts a proper examination of their conduct. (An earlier examination by the B.C. Legal Society evaded examining the central question relating to the conduct of Harris & Co. producing the McKinnon j. Sept. 15-2014 'bogus' Order.)
11) This overly-long account is necessary in order to eliminate the concept of frivolous and vexatious as a key argument in both cases before the SCofC.
12) The only other argument from the two provinces relates to jurisdiction. Essentially, the Employer uses the provisions on jurisdiction in an exclusionary manner failing to recognize that the rules they quote do not include such as the word 'only' in such delineations; e.g. the courts hear matters from a particular province such as QC and SK where the concerns are based. Without the word 'only'; non-provincial concerns may apply, particularly to ones furthering the course of justice. Such an analysis forces a recognition that Mr. Callow was expelled from B.C. Courts by the Cullen Creed in 2013 in which Justice Cullen acted for 'reasons best known to himself' in an unresolved legal matter. All courts hearing this claim refuse to discuss the ramifications of Cullen's highly controversial action. Nor will any court order disclosure in this matter of a government-induced fraud (B.C.'s BILL 35)
13) Unless Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould acts, it appears that the disgraceful ON justice system is given a free pass. Indeed, both the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister have not shown an ability to 'crack the whip' to date.
cc Hon. J. Wilson-Raybould Justice Minister of Canada
(Party Leaders) M.P.'s Ambrose / Nathan Cullen (for Mulcair) / May
Trudeau, 'the younger' could capitalize on his father's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms by opening a forum to the public as to revisions in our Justice System as the Employee's Case has shown, for a first time, major legal inequities across Canada. We don't live in a society where our kitchens and bathrooms function on a 1867 basis (BNA Act by which Canada became a country) so why should we have a patched 1867 justice model?...it's like pouring jet fuel into a model T Ford. At the very least, similar to automobiles, judges should be subject to recall.
ANATOMY OF A CANADIAN LEGAL CONSPIRACY
The legal story of Ottawa University Professor and alleged terrorist, Hassan Diab
News Item: Former Ottawa academic and terror suspect Hassan Diab is back in a Paris jail barely a week after he was released on bail...Diab's Canadian lawyer Don Bayne (Defence Lawyer for Senator Mike Duffy)"...It's an extension of an ongoing tragic miscarriage of justice and wrongful conviction in the making. Eighteen months in custody, then out (for one week in France where he was deported) then in custody, and still no trial and no mention of a trial..."
(So... I have been going 30 years without a trial - or retrial as the arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed on the legal issues regarding an illicit teacher lay-off in 1985) Diab is accused of murder...in an October 1980 Paris Terrorist attack (synagogue attack killing 4 and injuring 40 in the first major terrorist attack in Europe and a harbinger of more to come. Diab claims that he is an innocent victim of mistaken identity).
Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger ( a slippery judge indeed as I can attest to from my experience with him) ordered Diab extradited in June 2011, a decision subsequently confirmed by then-justice minister Rob Nicholson and upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Diab's final hope was the Supreme Court of Canada, which, to the surprise of many legal experts (not including this self-professed legal expert), refused to hear the case.
THEME: There are no legal oversight bodies in Canada, be they Appeal Courts or other such as the Canadian Judicial Council or Legal Societies or Parliament...that is the message of the Employeescasecanada.com...the Marangers of the Justice System have the last word...a word defined in the Offices of the Chief Justices of the land...and behind them? ...the grey eminence (Old Boy's Club) .How else can you explain the many lower court judges going completely 'off the farm' in the Employee's Case if they did not fear repercussions?
1) The legal argument is expressed well by Bayne; my point being that stories such as the above and the Employees Case (employescasecanada.ca) function above the legal mind.
2) My starting point is that Diab was well aware that someone in his position was targeted by Israeli assassins. He was forever looking over his shoulder for a 'quiet little' murder.
3) Guesswork at this point, but the assassins did not want to be seen 'making war on the academic world' hence the bid to extradite him to France where they have better control over the justice system.
4) It was France which turned a cold shoulder on the story in 1980 currently making up for lost time in the present which enabled a very weak request for extradition to be mounted.
5) At this point, a political decision from the top in Canada was made (similar to my own situation) in which Diab was to be extradited, the legal system be damned. The question to be asked here is why? Consider the following speculation. If Diab were released by Maranger (as he should have been), how would Canada react if he was then assassinated considering that lawlessness would appear to be rampant in Canada?
6) While not mentioned in the article, coincidentally, Diab and myself were contesting on the same day in the Ottawa 3 person Divisional Court (a bastardized operation not found in other provinces) our respective cases. We both lost. Diab went on to the Appeal Court of ON as did I but I was thwarted by the registry. (The current SCofC appeals by me in QC and SK are based to some extent on these ON irregularities.)
7) With the Canadian media in close watch along with academic supporters (something I must not look to have), the assassins got wet feet about a French court hearing as well as assassinating Diab while in custody awaiting a hearing.
8) That's why Diab was released for one week. To see if he would run, and if so, to be assassinated in the process. Diab smelled the rat and stayed put.
9) Is Diab guilty? He could very well be. But what is fact and what is provable in a court of law are two different things. Currently Diab in France is in my position...he can't get a hearing. In short, political prisoners are the order of the day both in France and Canada. N.B. Please note that Diab's case is a criminal one while mine is a civil case and, as such, there are wide differences in applicable laws. What is not different is that decisions are coming from on top without 'due process' which I label 'duly processed'. Or, in this case 'marangered' to cover all such operations.