FEBRUARY - 2014

 

FEBRUARY 13-2017

 

PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF CANADA

 

NOVA SCOTIA SUPREME COURT 458698 DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF YOUR LAY-OFF OR THAT OF A COLLEAGUE AND THE COLLECTION OF COMPENSATION. THIS JUNE ACROSS CANADA,WIDESPREAD LAY-OFFS ARE EXPECTED. DON'T LET THE EMPLOYER 'GAME' THE SYSTEM BY WITHHOLDING COMPENSATION AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE EMPLOYEE'S CASE(CANADA).

 

THE HOPE THAT THE WEST VANCOUVER, B.C. EMPLOYER IN THIS 32 YEAR UNRESOLVED CASE WOULD JOIN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COURTS AND IMPOSED LEGISLATION HAS BEEN DESTROYED AS THE EMPLOYER IS COPYING A PATTERN IN NOVA SCOTIA SEEN FROM OTHER PROVINCIAL COURTS TO UNDERMINE THIS CHALLENGE. SEE 10-PAGE 'HORROR STORY' REPLY TO THE WVST UNDER employescasecanada.ca NOVA SCOTIA DETAILING THE PERFIDY OF B.C.'S HARRIS & CO. IN THIS REGARD. THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO SUCCEED WITHOUT COURT COLLUSION WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVING FOR 32 YEARS.

 

THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE BY ME IS TO CALL ON THE NOVA SCOTIA BARRISTER'S SOCIETY TO BAR HARRIS AND COMPANY FROM THE PROVINCE FOR STATED FRAUDULENCIES.

 

THE SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE IS A SPURIOUS 'SURETY' CHARGE LAID BY THE EMPLOYER IN WHICH THE WVST HOPE TO HAVE THE ENTIRE MATTER THROWN OUT. JUDGING BY PAST EXPERIENCE, THEY WILL BE SUCCESSFUL UNLESS NOVA SCOTIA TEACHERS 'MAKE NOISE' WITH PREMIER STEPHEN MCNEIL. IF SUCCESSFUL, THE MAIN EVENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION - THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CIVIL QUESTION IN CANADIAN JURISPRUDENCE - REMAINS STILLBORN.

 

Quote from the 10 page Reply:

f) In short, the NS courts on surety should throw this Employer case out but, due to past experience, that is unlikely to happen unless NS teachers at large MAKE NOISE. Should the court act against hearing the main event, justice for all residents of Nova Scotia is at an end.

 

POST IN STAFFROOM

 

 

ATTENTION B.C. TEACHERS

DO NOT VOTE IN THE MAY ELECTION FOR ANY POLITICIAN  WHOM DOES NOT PUBLICIZE THE employescasecanada.ca

Don'tVote

This 32 year unresolved legal case regarding the illicit lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights) under the imposed BILL 35 negatively affects all Canadians. Cases currently extant in Nova Scotia (constitutional issue - Employer) and P.E.I. (disclosure - Union)

 

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

 

'MAKE NOISE'

POST IN STAFFROOM

 

OPEN LETTER ADDRESSED TO POTUS Mr. TRUMP

(Until a successive 21st Century Prime Minister to Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - FEB.12-2017

                                       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' due to systematic judicial malfeasance employescasecanada.ca (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 12 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). This series is now directed to POTUS  Mr. D. Trump whose statement 'the U.S. Judiciary is the laughing stock of the world' is echoed here in Canada by the Employees Case under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 which has revealed similar dry-rot in the Canadian Judiciary, particularly as it relates to its moribund oversight bodies including the executive powers of the P.M.(Trudeau)  Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind 'uber' story of the century. Currently, Nova Scotia teachers and their Union (for that matter, any Union with the exception of the B.C. Teachers), have been invited to be a 3rd Party in

my N.S. Claim 458698 SEE web. Even Employers such as Premier Brad Wall working under an imposed carbon tax is welcome to join.

 

 

QUOTES:

A) ...Do we really want fair trials? No, we do not. We want justice, and quickly. And justice is whatever we deem it to be on a case-by-case basis ...So, instead of evaluating its lack of evidence and reconsidering its case, the State is doing what it often does. It's plowing ahead with lies and fabricated testimony ...Since the State has no evidence, it is forced to manufacture some ...Lies on top of lies ...So I know the breed, the ilk, the subclass of lawyer who's above the law because he is the law. ...This is the judge who has so far allowed every word of bogus testimony offered by the State ...When the State, with its limitless resources, commences a fraudulent case and cheats at every turn, then cheating is legitimized....  Rogue Lawyer  John Grisham

B) ...If you see injustice, he told his son, something has to be done. Don't ignore it and don't just talk about it with your friends. Stand up and do something.... The Last Nazi Hinter  O.S. Feb.01-2017 p.14

C) It seems like the only time they're able to move things forward is when we yell and scream Media Comment

D) Crime once exposed had no refuge but in audacity Tacitus in Horace Odes  Book 2

 

MESSAGE

1) While the constitutional question in N.S. 458698 is the single most important legal question relating government legislation to the oversight powers of the court, the Employee's Case is incidental to that outcome.

2) In this sorry legal schmozzle , the West Vancouver School Trustee 'tail' has no intention of paying any compensation under whatever scheme the court supports as they have successfully 'wagged' the Canadian judicial dog for 32 years ...why stop now? Further litigation in other venues will be necessary.

3) While having limited impact on the Employee's Case, 458698 will redefine what is meant by democracy in Canada. In brief, democracy can disappear with this N.S. judgment:

a) By declaring the court's right to its oversight powers, the presiding justice saves the Justice System at the expense of flushing down the toilet the 32 years of litigation before '50 plus' bozo judges including the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) on 4 occasions = anarchy

b) By declaring the government's power to invoke imposed legislation apart from judicial overview, the courts become redundant and Canada sinks into being a dictatorship.

c) Should the appointed judge follow the route of the 'bozos' in throwing this matter out of court for such jurisdictional excuses as being frivolous & vexatious, the judge sacrifices the power of a court to oversee any government legislation making the court, in that process, redundant. The whole concept of 'rule by law' becomes a meaningless vessel. Again, dictatorship rules.

4) Look around the world and see how public demonstrations are the only thing holding some democracies to account. That's why NS & PEI teachers must MAKE NOISE.

5) In the 1990's Alvin Toffler in Future Shock wrote about the cultural lag e.g. a small girl in New York city returned home without the milk she was sent for because 'they had torn down the store' which adults would interpret as having gotten lost not realizing that the small girl's experience was solely with that of witnessing buildings being torn down in her area.

6) My upgrade on Toffler relates to a 1960's psychological experiment with sheep. If they touched the square shape, they were fed. If they touched the triangle, they received an electrical shock. The square was gradually narrowed to a triangle to the point where the sheep could not distinguish between the two shapes. It went ballistic.

7) Similarly, in the past, adults had an easier time distinguishing between ethics in terms of the analogy of square and triangular shapes than they do today which, I submit here, has latterly led to a noticeable increase in the stress levels of modern day life where the media are bogged down in 'what is true?' or, if you like, with which shape are you dealing? Confusion reigns.

 

 

8) The significance of the E.C. is that, similar to the quote from novelist, John Grisham, there is no difference between the perfidy of the original quashed arbitration with the arbitrator labeled patently unreasonable and the ensuing judges and courts extending on that theme similar to Grisham's quote plus additional judicial shenanigans which he has never even thought of. What is significant in the E.C., similar to the Senator Mike Duffy trial - a first in Canadian Senate history - is that the justice system has been exposed (although Duffy's Trial stopped short of challenging the corrupt Senate conspiracy) in a fashion never before experienced. That's why the teachers need to MAKE NOISE now. Waiting on the Union leaders whom have a vested interest in the 'sweetheart deal' is anathemic to the personal needs of an individual client. In retrospect, while I could not have afforded the arbitration at the time (the prime purpose of BILL 35), I would have been better off without Union representation as they repeatedly refused to put School Trustees on the stand to attest to lay-off numbers which showed an increase of staffing positions; any number of which I could have held.

9) Please do not mistake, there are many honest judges in the system whom feel powerless to act as do media writers operating under the constraints of their editors. That's why NS & PEI teachers are needed to hit the streets and hit the airways.

 

February 14-2017

 

TO:                                                                                         FROM:

Rt. Hon.  J. Trudeau P.M.                                                 Roger Callow

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL                                          1285 Cahill Drive W. #2001

'employescasecanada.ca'                                               Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

80 Wellington St.                                                              

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 by fax: 613-941-6900

 

QUOTE: A)'The darkest places in Hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis'  Dante  (November 9-2016 letter to P.M. Trudeau)

 

B) The case in Nova Scotia 458698 is focused on the constitutional question where no appearance was necessary for the litigants. So why has the Employer sought to include case specifics thus altering the direction of this N.S. case? Answer: Look at what happened in 2016 in SK 36993 &  QC 36883 which turned out to be a no-show at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC). In brief, B.C.'s Harris & Co. include all the fraudulences in their factum so that nothing can come back and kick them in the teeth...the courts approved of their actions, haven't  they? Will N.S. Premier McNeil throw his Justice System down the toilet such as SK & QC? Up to bat in that regard are actions pending in PEI, (union) ON & AB. Further, these sins are accumulative, so much so that the Prime Minister is now directly involved. Are all Canadians to resolve all legal matters in the street? N.S. Teachers at large should stop the conspirator's juggernaut by MAKING NOISE which includes protesting inactivity by the P.M. and media. June and teacher lay-off time is coming fast with all Employers wondering if they can follow the West Vancouver School Board modus operandi of ducking out of paying compensation to laid-off teachers. (web site  employeescasecanada.ca  RECENT 3)

 

MESSAGE:

1) Regrettably, you did not take action regarding the fraudulency matters relating to the two SCofC  2016 hearings leaving Canada and Canadians with a highly compromised Judiciary (not even to send in the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division has a record) to seize disclosure from the Employer and Union in this 'sweetheart deal' which has undermined this case for 32 years!). Perhaps it was the silence of the politicians and the anti-employee media which guided your non-action. Perhaps not. At any rate, Canada is significantly poorer for your inaction.

 

2) Now it would appear to be the turn of Nova Scotia with PEI, ON, and AB 'on deck'. Once again, will you sit idly by witnessing the collapse of such as Premier McNeil's Nova Scotia government  leaving citizens nowhere but the streets to turn in search of justice?

 

Yours, in disappointment, (Roger Callow)

 

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

 

February 16-2015

 

TO: Board of School Trustees                                                     FROM: Roger Callow 

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.) (WVST)                               1285 Cahill Drive West #2001

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9  Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                   

SENT BY FAX  (3 pages)

                                                                       

REFERENCE: 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance'  employescasecanada.ca  REPLY-NOVA SCOTIA  458698

 

MESSAGE:

1) Included is a form sheet dated February 09-2017 from the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario signaling the go-ahead of a motion of which draft copy dated November 4-2016 (re-issue) was earlier provided to you. N.B. Correct address is '393' University Avenue

2) That motion was almost simplistic in its request:

a) For the Defendant to voluntarily produce disclosure which has plagued this case for 32 years as exacerbated by various courts, particularly those in Ontario. The mess at the Appeal Court level of ON Chief Justice George Strathy has never been sorted out.

b) In the event of a non-voluntary disclosure by the Employer, a court Order to that effect.

c) In the event of non-disclosure by either interests, the awarding of a default settlement in the amount of $20 million for all outstanding claims. No lesser amount may be assigned.

3) Of course the court would have to in b) call for that disclosure to see on what they are deciding which,  of course, provides me with my original request for disclosure. With that finding, I am out of Ontario courts.

Nova Scotia

4) In the interim of the above procrastination, I filed a solely constitutional question in N.S. 458698 the terms on which we both agree. There is no need for either litigant to appear as case specific terms were deliberately omitted to avoid controversy. The court was to conduct themselves on the basis of Referencing with their own resources although both litigants would be available for further contributions if so requested by the court.

5) On February 10-2017, the Employer chose to challenge this matter on the case level without a) providing disclosure which I did not initially request but now have been forced to do so thus altering my factum accordingly to request that disclosure.

b) providing no reference to the constitutional question relating to imposed legislation which is of prime interest to both employees and employers alike.

6) Indeed, the focus of the Employer is to - it is submitted here - to once again de-rail the court on technicalities. In short, through 2 motions on 'surety' and 'jurisdiction' the Employer would seek to have the court throw out this plaintiff's action.

7) Problematic for the NS courts in this regard is the voluminous Book of Authorities replete with many inaccuracies denoting fraud. In brief, through a process that I label reverse osmosis, the Employer would have the court condone these nefarious actions thus making them a party to this conspiracy as reflected in their approval of the Employer's requests.

8) In Ontario, the factum would not raise too many eyebrows as most of these alleged frauds were committed with the complicity of Ontario courts which played out in Quebec and Saskatchewan culminating in the Supreme Court of Canada where no action was taken.

9) The above perfidy is now a topic for the executive powers of a Prime Minister.

10) As for Nova Scotia which is in receipt of your factum, the situation is different as the Justice System of Premier McNeil is still in a pristine condition on this issue.

11) As you now know, I have forwarded my complaint against your factum to the Nova Scotia's Barrister's Society for a proper analysis of my complaints which have been avoided by all courts to date. That ruling is to precede any hearings that you have called for in N.S.

Proposal

12) What possible advantage is there for the Employer to poison the atmosphere of yet another court system?

13) You should drop your representation in Nova Scotia courts and let the constitutional question proceed according to my original request. Compensation is owed to this laid-off senior teacher in this 32 year legal saga. The outcome in N.S. Courts would denote which set of rules are to apply although how those rules may indeed be applied is the direction of future litigation apart from Nova Scotia.

14) For this reason in awaiting the N.S. Barrister's response should you choose not to withdraw, I will hold the action in Ontario in abeyance until I see which direction the N.S. Justice System is headed.

15) Please let me know soonest should you withdraw your N.S. application.

 

Yours truly

 

Roger Callow

 

incl. Ontario Superior Court approval form to proceed to acquiring a docket number

 

cc  N.S. Barrister's Society / N.S. Ct. 458698 / Premiers: McNeil- Wynne-Notley- Maclauchlan

 

ADDENDUM: An action against the B.C. Teachers Union for their copy of disclosure in P.E.I. is likely to be successful if the laws are followed which could prove to be embarrassing should the courts protecting the Employer continue with their filibustering.

 

 

OPEN LETTER ADDRESSED TO POTUS Mr. TRUMP

(Until a successive 21st Century Prime Minister to Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - FEB.19-2017

                                                                                                     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' due to systematic judicial malfeasance employescasecanada.ca (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 12 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). This series is now directed to POTUS  Mr. D. Trump whose statement 'the U.S. Judiciary is the laughing stock of the world' is echoed here in Canada by the Employees Case under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 which has revealed similar dry-rot in the Canadian Judiciary, particularly as it relates to its moribund oversight bodies including the executive powers of the P.M.(Trudeau)  Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind 'uber' story (external attack from an unexpected source) of the century. Currently, Nova Scotia teachers in N.S. Claim 458698 are the focus of attention with this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent Prime Minister).

 

QUOTE: A) 'In the halls of Canadian justice, all justice is in the halls'

B) Why don't sharks eat lawyers?  ...professional courtesy

 

      

 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF (N.S.) 458698

MESSAGE:

1) Good morning, Mr. Trump (yes, this account gets written at 4 A.M.). By all accounts, you are a good listener ...not so good after that. So please listen as to how Canada, the 'fourteenth colony' is sacrificing her democratic government through the exposure of an inherently corrupt and corruptible legal system as evidenced by the 'one-of-a-kind' legal debacle known as the Employee's Case (Canada).

 

2) In 1985 when, as the targeted senior teacher falsely laid off under the provisions of B.C.'s imposed BILL 35, it was not known that an employer could game the system by not paying any compensation which is automatic under the law. Today, it is now known in this case in Nova Scotia, where this fact is exactly what is at question which is why I call on the Nova Scotia teachers to form an ad hoc body on behalf of not only all professional teachers of Canada, but all contract employees. The case will rise and fall on their response. Here's why.

 

3) The legal pattern for this WV School Board employer is clear. To wait until the last minute - sometimes even waiting until the court convenes - to file their Response to my Action leaving me with little or no opportunity to create a REPLY. This is a common judicial stunt. Add one corrupt judge appointed by the Chief Justice, stir well, and what pops out next bears little resemblance to the issues outlined in this plaintiff's factum. In this caper, the Employee's Case (E.C.) is not unique in that this type of corruption is extant in many, many instances; the E.C. merely being the worst case example in Canadian jurisprudence.

 

4) By limiting N.S. 458698 to the constitutional question where the Employer would not recognize court oversight, it was hoped that a decision on this level would further the settlement cause in other courts outside of N.S.  The B.C. court in 1986 quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. He had converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with myself as the necessary 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off in June of 1985. It seems that this exercise was attributable more for the Employer to rid themselves of a whistleblower than to any other single cause. They hi-jacked the legislature and co-opted the judiciary to that end in order to sanction a sweetheart deal.

 

5) I invited the Employer under these circumstances not to attend in N.S. as case specifics were to be omitted. Such was not to be as, once again, the Employer sprung a response which neither dealt with the constitutional question nor provided the necessary disclosure of School Board meeting notes in June of 1985 where BILL 35 and my dismissal were extensively discussed. That disclosure request was ignored by the courts (for 32 years) but is now renewed due to the Employer opening up this case.

 

6) The attempt by the Employer worked with success in the past and seen to be repeated here is to arrange for a 'quick deed' court chambers hearings of a half hour; the first ostensibly for a spurious surety (also from the past) with the second for the usual jurisdictional excuse as a means of having either court to dispose of the constitutional issue. The purpose of an oral hearing in general is to give the impression of everyone 'having their day in court'. Nothing could be further from the truth as the judge pretty well knows how he is going to rule before he enters the court room. In that endeavor, much depends on whom the Chief Justice appoints to such political cases as the E.C. - a jurist of established reputation or one of the other kind, also with a 'reputation':

'Sorry. So out of fifteen assistant city prosecutors, I'm sure you and Woody (the mayor) can find one with a bit of ambition, one who'll do what you tell him to do in exchange for the big office. Come on, Moss, this is not complicated.' Rogue Lawyer  John Grisham

 

7) As the factum of B.C.'s Harris & Co. includes the usual fraudulent material embarrassing to the court - and therefore a means of blackmail - I have referred the matter first to the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society with a copy to Premier Stephen McNeil. In brief, is Nova Scotia's pristine Justice System to be infected with the equivalent to an 'aid's virus' which has contaminated all other courts in other provinces? It will happen if the N.S. Teachers do not MAKE NOISE. For example a small group of teachers should make it a point to inform all Nova Scotia teachers of the ramifications of this issue to all Canadian contract employees as well as to professional Canadian teachers. For myself and my case, I have other alternatives. Nova Scotia does not.

 

8) The above question is pertinent to School Boards across Canada which have 'made peace' with their teachers as seen through recent salary increases as a means of lulling them into a false security. While the mass of teachers will see no effect immediately, what about that senior teacher (senior teachers get twice the salary of beginning teachers) targeted for lay-off this June in a system where, due to the higher salary structure, they are unemployable in their given profession? In B.C., the government has structured their election for May before the teacher lay-off notice must be given on May 31st.

 

General

9) 'Burn out' characterizes professions including the teaching one. Added class sizes with demands to be 'all things to all people' plagues the teaching profession. ON doctors must service 1000 clients (1500 in QC) in a revolving door fashion. Lawyers are being squeezed out of their traditional work (auto and family claims) forcing them to 'chase ambulances' with publicized 'personal injury' advertisements. Turning to government for these unemployed lawyers in which jobs are re-classified is adding (unnecessarily) to the tax load. Federal employees, as a personal generalization 'hate their jobs' due to bureaucratic interference of the type I have experienced with the E.C. but shut up due to the good pension scheme. The anti-employee media is withering away on reduced advertising and is aping entertainment news to stay alive. Backing the wrong horse in the 1915 Canadian Federal election and the 1916 U.S. election was more than just a coffin nail for these erstwhile enterprises.

 

10) So what is my answer which I have suggested in earlier accounts if Canada is to survive - democratically or otherwise - and not to become an American state due to insolvency?

To scrap provincial governments modeled on an 1867 model of a 3-1/2 mainly million rural population along with the Federal House of Commons (338 M.P.'s whose main claim to existence is to raise funds for the political parties and vote 'ready, aye, ready' with the actual work being done by a similar number of PMO appointments = redundancy) Nowadays, people vote primarily for the leader so why all the unnecessary infrastructure? The Prime Minister would be elected 'at large' and appoint his own cabinet free of Party encumbrances.

 

11) The transference to the new system would be easier than one might think. Canada came together in 1867 with 'bonds of steel'; that is the railroad. Today they would come together with 'bonds of debt'. By promising to absorb the provincial debts, (let's face it; it is all taxpayer money), the new government with a revised elected Senate could rule Canada at a much reduced taxation level and, I dare say, with more efficiency.

 

12) The beauty of this argument is that provincial government appointments could be kept in place but would report to a senator while changes are made. Political parties could still exist, but on their own dime. The Prime Minister would be released from honouring most of the Party obligations as seen through lobbyist pressures. The pattern is not unlike the U.S. one.

 

13) At the very least, Mr. Trump, you should inform U.S. commercial interests that any legal dispute involving Canada will be held in U.S. courts with, in the event of a successful action, payment guaranteed by the U.S. government to be held as holdback against Canadian assets.

 

14) So, as you may see, Mr. Trump, my ideas on the Canadian Justice System and government reform are as unpopular as you are in person. Have a pleasant weekend ...and be kind to our Prime Minister ...he's a lovely boy, quite unlike me.  Just call me 'outlaw'

 

(EMBLAZONED ACROSS THE FRONT PAGE OF THE OTTAWA SUN  FEB. 15-2017)

 

CANADIANS DON'T TRUST ...GOVERNMENT...MEDIA...BUSINESS

Little guy fed up with out-of-touch establishment

 

 

FEBRUARY 20 - ONTARIO JUSTICE COLIN MCKINNON

 

    

 

 

Annotated Article Text

employescasecanada.com Colin McKinnon j.

 

" I've been a judge now for 21 years, believe it or not". Response: dichotomy; I don't believe it but I have to believe it. ...Habeas Corpus: Let the body be heard....R. and little else; no disclosure, nothing ..."My plan was to be an actor. My first love was acting...But my mother sat me down and said, "Listen. You like the good life too much R. which means bad life for others? If you're going to be an actor, you're going to starve to death serving tables. Go be a lawyer. 99 out of 100 lawyers succeed (R. Was McKinnon the #100?) ...One out of 100 actors succeeds. Do your acting in front of juries." R. Curses on you mother, many times over.

     ...eventually became a bencher of the law society - those are the elected governors who regulate our profession...And doing discipline cases, I began to write opinions on the conduct of lawyers who had gone awry. R. so that's why the ON Legal Society did not respond to your fraudulent behaviour with the Employee's Case(Canada) as it related to Hicks, Morley et al ...I'll bet you had to call in a few markers on this one ...and that is what gave me the thirst to become a judge. R. Oh, the power, the power...Up until then I hadn't given judging any thought  R. nor after if the Employee's Case is any example ...but I love the freedom of being able to write without being obligated to a client. R. Is that statement being made from the back pocket of the Employer in the Employee's Case? Even here you got it wrong as the Employer launched 13-59060 to get an adjudication on their claim that due to imposed legislation; the courts had no oversight powers. (The B.C. court in 1986 quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer, the West Vancouver School Board) You ignored that central question explaining why I have launched N.S. 458698. Your perfidy in writing two judgments; one on April 23 -2014 shortly after the above hearing and a second bastardized one on September 15 -2014 used only by your fellow Federal Court appointee, Robert Scott (why both judges were referred to the Canadian Council of Judges under President B. McLachlin SCofC). There was no reply...what IS IT with these oversight bodies??? For the uninitiated, the Federal Court under Chief Justice Paul Crampton pays its judges significantly less than their provincial counterparts explaining why it is considered a 'back door entry' to provincial courts. One such Federal judge - Nadon j. - was rejected by the SCofC during the Harper years; a first in legal jurisprudence. McKinnon makes no reference to his early Federal Court days. ...Before I go into court I say to myself, "Thank-you God for the privilege of being a judge and may I remember that I too, am being judged." R. If this letter is any indication...hell, yes, you are being judged. Remind me to have a word with that God of yours. ...Sometimes the actors are bad and the play is good, and sometimes the play is bad and the actors are good.... R. So which are you? a bad or good actor? a bad or good judge? I'll let the readers of this tome decide. For me, you and Justice Scott should not be sitting on the bench nor, for that matter, should Trudeau be sitting as P.M. Without credibility, there can be no justice system and therefore no democracy as evidenced by the Employee's Case (Canada)

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to Judicial malfeasance largely due to Judges (over 50) such as Justice Colin McKinnon.

 

 

February 21-2017

 

TO: Nova Scotia Judicial Council                        FROM: Roger Callow #458698 Superior Court

ATTN: Chief Justice (chair)                                                  1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

The Law Courts                                                                      Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

1815 Upper Water St.                                                        

Halifax, NS  B3J 1S7                                                             

sent by fax: 902-424-0524   cc Premier McNeil /PMO /RCMP 

 

Reference: A message was left today on my telephone tape of a discussion apparently held between a Superior court clerk and a (female) judge agreeing to postpone a February hearing date in 458698 for 'surety' unilaterally set by B.C. Counsel (Harris & Co.) for the Defendant, the Board of School Trustees of West Vancouver (S.D. #45), B.C.  I had requested a postponement until the Barrister's Society examined alleged fraudulent materials in the Defendant's lengthy 'Book of Authorities'.

 

MESSAGE:

1) The point of this letter is to be pro-active against any possible collusion between legal counsel for the defendant and the judiciary which has plagued this unresolved labour case regarding the illicit lay-off of a senior B.C. teacher case for 32 years where disclosure has been withheld. No compensation has been paid.

2) In other materials on file with the court, the general pattern followed by the defendant is to collude with judicial authorities leaving this plaintiff to make unreciprocated appeals both  to provincial Legal Societies and the Canadian Council of Judges (B. McLachlin President).

3) While the courts may quote jurisdictional factors to obviate my charges of fraud; that does not deal with the action of fraud itself explaining why the PMO has been requested to use its executive powers to act; even to sending in the RCMP for the purpose of seizing disclosure material. (P.M. Trudeau has fallen down on this point.)

4) It should be noted here that the plaintiff originally set the above case in N.S. to be 'case neutral' in that only the constitutional question regarding imposed legislation would be raised and conducted by the court through Referencing on a written basis. That question is of prime importance not only to Nova Scotia teachers but to all Canadian contract employees. (The Employer only recognizes B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 (1985) and refuses to recognize court overview in which the arbitration was quashed in 1986 and the arbitrator ruled as being patently unreasonable. Other B.C. judges beginning in 1995 claimed that only the Union under the collective bargaining rules could represent me in this obvious sweetheart deal. For my part, whether it is BILL 35, the collective bargaining process, or some other terms of contract, I am owed compensation under either of those three mechanisms.

5) The B.C. Court's answer was to expel me from B.C. (Cullen Creed) in July -2013 for 'reasons best known to the judge' forcing me into other provincial venues. No court will challenge the ultra vires nature of that action in what I label 'law by reverse osmosis'.

6) Hence my procedural reversal in N.S. where I first asked the N.S. Barrister's Society to investigate two outstanding frauds listed in the Defendant's Book of Authorities:

a) ON 13-59060 laid by the Employer (Hicks Morley et al) demanding that all issues be discussed which included the constitutional question now being raised by me currently in N.S.

b) Most unfortunately, Ottawa Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon, ignored that challenge turning instead to labeling this defendant as being frivolous & vexatious. He compounded his misguided ruling by issuing two orders; the first on April 23-2014 shortly after the hearing and a second bastardized one on September 15-2014 for which I had no foreknowledge and immediately before a hearing which I had arranged before a Justice Scott 14-61592. A 'stay of proceedings' thwarted any Appeal of the action before Scott.

c) In a story which I label 'Lavery de Billy (Employer's QC counsel) tail wags QC judicial dog' I also included the QC Appeal Court's apparently innocuous decision from which I note that the grounds for my Appeal are completely missing; namely, the judge who sat on the lower court hearing is not mentioned in the Appeal Court's ruling in that the second judge who re-opened the case (a 'second kick at the can' for de Billy) made no mention of the existence of that first judge. The SCofC Appeal 36883 (2016) was rejected for a hearing thus leaving the PMO to act on this most egregious act of duplicity.

7) Without that analysis of the above requested here of the N.S. Barrister's Society preceding the two hearings requested by Harris & Co. both calling for a dismissal , I feel that I am looking at yet another conspiracy.

8) For this reason, I have exhorted the N.S. teachers to MAKE NOISE in this highly political matter along with keeping Premier McNeil informed. Will N.S. go the way of Premier Couillard's Quebec and SK's Premier Wall (36993 - 2016) which was also stymied leaving the PMO to deal with the fraudulent actions in SK Courts? Bottom Line? The citizens of QC and SK have nowhere to turn for justice except the street. Is that to be the fate of N.S.? Will the Chief Justice & Premier McKinnon between them keep the N.S. justice system in its 'pristine' condition by throwing out B.C.'s Harris & Co. or will they commit the province to this Employer conspiracy as Premiers Chouinard and Wall did in QC & SK? It is their choice to make for the future of all residents of Nova Scotia.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow   plaintiff

February 22-2017

 

TO: Nova Scotia Judicial Council                        FROM: Roger Callow #458698 Superior Court

ATTN: Chief Justice (chair)                                                  1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

The Law Courts                                                                      Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

1815 Upper Water St.                                                        

Halifax, NS  B3J 1S7                                                             

sent by fax: 902-424-0524   cc Premier McNeil /PMO /RCMP

 

Reference: On February 21, I erroneously interpreted the message left on my tape as a conversation between A Superior Court clerk and an un-named justice regarding the holding of a 1/2 hour Chambers 'surety' meeting date arranged solely by the Employer defendant to which I did not agree. Today on my tape were again the same people but apparently it was a Superior Court clerk attempting to get a 3-way conversation with B.C.'s Harris & Co. in order to get a revised date. Below are some of my observations on the conversation of those two.

 

MESSAGE:

1) As a generalization, the Defendant operates on the 'error of omission' which, regrettably, the courts are only too willing to accept without question in this 32 year unresolved B.C. labour issue where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

2) In the above discussion today, the Harris & Co. representative expressed a willingness to accept a new date for the 'surety' originally slated for late February.

3) The new date, according to my schedule would follow after the N.S. Barristers Society analyze the copious factum filed by Harris & Co. which, I submit, included outright fraudulent material. By winning their cases in the past, the illusion created here is that the courts sanction this illicit material. As no oversight body provides  examination of these alleged frauds, the appearance is that the written record of judicial findings is in fact all that survives in the public record which does not explain why this plaintiff does not have a judicial finding for 32 years from which compensation may be paid.

4) In order to truncate this scamming of the system, I laid the constitutional question (c.q.) apart from case specifics requesting action. Case action would take place elsewhere no matter what the outcome on the constitutional question. In brief, there is no need for the input of litigants as the case specifics I provide illustrate the scope of the problem with imposed legislation for both employer and employee. Interestingly, while the Employer posed the same question in Ontario courts, they are now opposing this motion and want it dropped. They did not provide any material of their own on the c.q. denoting that they expect to be successful with their petition to have this case dropped similar to earlier questionable court actions.

5) The surety or 'deadbeat law' is commonly used to discount a litigant's stature before the court. The speaker above mentioned the existence of previous sureties demanded (and paid under highly specious circumstances) which I have outlined elsewhere. In brief, the $10,000 that I paid in B.C. in 2010 for the continuation of an Appeal Case was for nought as the judicial system blindsided me in other ways. I never received any of those funds back. A second surety for $8,000 permitted an SK Appeal Court to proceed under highly specious conditions where in an ex parte meeting with Harris & Co., a decision was made for Harris & Co. not to appear in court. The Court's one-liner agreement with the lower court told me that my money had once again been wasted. Presumably this is what passes for judicial humour.

6) It seems apparent from the tape today that the Harris & Co. representative under these circumstances  does not believe that this case will go past the 'surety' meeting.

7) As the litigant-neutral c.q. approach by me has not succeeded, I have done two things:

a) demanded that disclosure (alleging fraud) be presented before consideration of any of the Employer's claims. This 32 year filibustering by the Employer abetted by the courts is at the root of any discussion of this case apart from the c.q. Without that disclosure, no discussion of this case including surety makes any sense. N.S. & Premier McNeil are personally affected here

b) requested that the N.S. Barrister's Society examine the copious Book of Authorities filed by the Employer which includes matters of extensive fraud. I provided two pertinent sections in that regard; irregularities dealing with the two 2014 rulings of ON Superior Court's Colin McKinnon regarding frivolous & vexatious action on my part, the second bastardized account written 6 months later without referring to the original, and the matter of the QC's judicial irregularities referred to by the Harris & Co. representative above to the extent that I did not appear in that court (for stated reasons). Technically, my Appeal factum was rejected to which Lavery de Billy for the Employer subsequently filed for a hearing in which my original question was not included; namely, why were there two lower court hearings in Gatineau, the first by a sitting judge whom was not referred to by a second judge whom re-opened the case due to the bid of Lavery de Billy which I labeled 'running a 'court within a court' and Lavery de Billy 'tail' wags 'QC judicial dog'. I was awaiting a decision from the oversight bodies as to which one was the 'standing party' considering that I did not have a factum accepted by the court. This dichotomy still exists due to the failure of not only the oversight bodies to respond but also to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) 36883-2016 Decision not to hear this issue. That matter now rests with the PMO for executive action.

8) Hence I am quite prepared to have the hearing on surety made after the considered opinion of the Barrister's Society in which I recommend that Harris & Co. be barred from the province (N.B. a N.S. Legal entity replacement bound by the laws of N.S. would be acceptable as long as they do not repeat the lies of the current Book of Authorities by the Defendant.)  Hopefully, the N.S. Barrister's Society does not repeat the stunt of the QC Legal Society which phoned me one day before the Appeal Court hearing stating that 'the court will decide as to fraudulent actions'. The court never did. That's why the PMO is involved as well as the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division). Ideally, the courts would examine these claims. They never have in the history of this 32 year case before over 50 judges and 4 inconsequential trips to the SCofC.

9) In summary, unless the Employer produces disclosure, The N.S. Courts are quite within their rights - indeed they must act accordingly - to deny B.C.'s Harris & Co. request to appear in Nova Scotia courts with an accompanying order by the court for the constitutional question to proceed apart from case specifics as originally intended by this plaintiff.

 

Yours truly (Roger Callow) Plaintiff

 

 

   

     OPEN LETTER ADDRESSED TO POTUS Mr. TRUMP

(Until a successive 21st Century Prime Minister to Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - FEB.26-2017

                                                                                                     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' due to systematic judicial malfeasance employescasecanada.ca (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 12 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). This series is now directed to POTUS  Mr. D. Trump whose statement 'the U.S. Judiciary is the laughing stock of the world' is echoed here in Canada by the Employees Case under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 which has revealed similar dry-rot in the Canadian Judiciary, particularly as it relates to its moribund oversight bodies including the executive powers of the P.M.(Trudeau)  Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind 'uber' story (external attack from an unexpected source) of the century. Currently, Nova Scotia teachers in N.S. Claim 458698 are the focus of attention with this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent Prime Minister). Today's theme is a summary of fraudulent court hearings since 2013 when I was expelled from B.C. under the 'Cullen Creed' in which a judge on his own recognizance, without taking argument or quoting any laws, expelled me from B.C. courts for 'reasons best known to himself' forcing me into other provinces which is the scope of this Newsletter.

 

February 20-2017

ON A MATTER OF GROSS INCOMPETENCE

1) The genesis of the above matter is focused primarily on the misconduct of the Ontario Justice System in 2014 under Ottawa Justices Colin McKinnon and Robert Scott plus the Employer's representation by Hicks, Morley et al whom later dropped representation of the employer. Both McKinnon j. and Scott j. were originally  Federal Court Employees explaining why the complaints against them by me were forwarded in 2014 to the Canadian Judicial Council (President B. McLachlin - SCofC Chief Justice) and the Law Society of Ontario (regarding the Hicks Morley representative). There was no acknowledgment of the complaint from either source.

 

2) In brief, McKinnon j. brought down his decision on an action laid by the Employer 13-59060 on April 23-2014. On September 15, McKinnon j. wrote a second action very similar to the first dated September 15-2014 which did not reference the first Order. Shortly after, in an action 14-61592 that I laid before Scott j., Hicks, Morley et al ,whom had not filed a 'Notice of Appearance', leaped into court and handed the second bastardized McKinnon Order into the eager hands of Scott j. much to my objection. Scott j. would only consider this second McKinnon Order thus obviating my written rejection of McKinnon's first Order. As he introduced a 'stay of proceedings', the Ontario Appeal Court would not consider my appeal.

 

3) The above 'disconnect' played out in courts in QC and SK, both reaching the SCofC in 2016 under the same 3-person SCofC rejection: 36883 QC and 36993 SK. Both Premiers Chouinard and Wall were kept full apprised of developments in their respective provinces which also added their own brand of judicial chicanery.

 

4) In QC, the courts 'whitewashed' the fact that two judges in Gatineau officiated in this case; the first one being the hearing judge while the second re-opened the case on a written basis on his own recognizance and wrote the judgment without referencing the existence of the first judge which I labeled 'running a court within a court'. The Appeal which I labeled 'Lavery de Billy 'tail' wags 'Quebec judicial dog' made no reference to the existence of the Gatineau 'bobbsey twins'.

 

5) SK was not without its skulduggery either. The Appeal Court judge held a ex parte meeting with B.C.'s Harris & Co. in which it was decided that they would not be heard in court. When I learned in this teleconferencing meeting of the above fact plus the refusal of the head judge to permit any question to the other two sitting judges, I was not surprised to read the one-liner judgment in that the SK Appeal Court agreed with the lower court. The matter of fraud as it related to the McKinnon Order was thus obviated as well as the constitutional question regarding the ultra vires nature of B.C.'s BILL 35 (1985).

 

6) In both provinces, the respective Legal Societies failed to evaluate the use of McKinnon's Orders; the April 23-2014 one in QC and the September 15-2014 in SK. That is why the matter of fraud now rests with the executive powers of the Prime Minister who has the power to send in the RCMP (Montreal fraud section) which has also been kept fully apprised of these transgressions. Under these circumstances, P.M. Trudeau would be quite within his rights to suspend Chief Justice B. McLachlin and withhold her pension (she is scheduled to retire this year) until this matter of  alleged fraud has been resolved.

 

7) Currently, B.C.'s Harris & Co. for the B.C. Employer would thwart the N.S. hearing seeking to de-rail the constitutional question regarding imposed Legislation. As far as the Employee's Case  employescasecanada.ca is concerned, The Employer's position is that the courts of law do not have any oversight powers on such as the imposed  BILL 35. Hence the 1986 Court ruling overturning the arbitration favouring the School Board which was supported on Appeal, has been used for 32 years, with the complicity of the courts, to deny compensation (now includes pension rights for 10 years) to this writer. (My argument is that I am owed compensation whether under BILL 35, the collective bargaining rules or some other rules of contract.) That is the log-jam which affects both employers and employees in Canada and is the sole focus of the case in N.S. In short, it was to be 'case neutral' in that no other part of this case was to be discussed other than the constitutional question.

 

8) The 'Book of Authorities' filed by Harris & Co. has changed all that as it contains all the perfidies of events in B.C. (Cullen Creed) Ontario, QC and SK. For that reason, I have forwarded compromising  material with a request to the N.S. Barrister's Society to, in effect, expel Harris & Co. from N.S. and permit the Constitutional Question to proceed as set forth by me.

 

9) Unlike Ontario, QC and SK, the courts in N.S. are as yet untainted. Nor are the courts in P.E.I. (action against the Union), and Alberta tainted where actions are pending.

 

10) While I have the go-ahead in Ontario, I am holding the action in abeyance until I see which way the N.S. courts go which includes the ad hoc revelation of this mammoth story by N.S. teachers at large. To date, similar to B.C. teachers, they are sitting on their duff not appreciating the significance of teacher lay-offs for declining enrolment slated across Canada for this June and how imposed legislation can greatly restrict their rights.

 

11) Special mention needs be made of the action in P.E.I. against the B.C. Teachers Union. In 1995, the B.C. court declared this matter as solely a Union matter for which all actions on my part had to be funnelled through the Union. Harris & Co. for the Employer wrote an intimidating letter to the B.C. Labour Board warning them against holding a Section 12 hearing - the only legality that I was permitted - in that the judicial system held no oversight powers as BILL 35 was the sole operant mechanism. They succeeded as no hearing was ever held although my legal counsel, Ottawa lawyer, Paul Conlin, wrote a scathing letter denouncing the perfidy of that B.C. Labour Board action. (see website 2017). Unfortunately, when I dismissed the Union lawyer, Bruce Laughton in 1986 whom represented both the Union and myself before Justice Southin in 1986 where the arbitration was quashed and replaced him with my own lawyer, he went on to solely represent the interests of the Union contrary to professional ethics even later joining with the Employer to oppose my interests. He still represents the Union today. Should he turn up in P.E.I., I will pursue him in much the same fashion that I am pursuing Harris & Co. in N.S. In short, the Union must get new representation, preferably from P.E.I. where they are bound by local laws. That so selected legal firm should be very wary of any materials provided by the B.C. Union and/or Bruce Laughton Q.C. The disclosure requested belongs to me in any event as the lawyer I hired should have handed the material to me, not the union. It should also be noted that Mr. Laughton did not have my express permission to handle the Appeal launched by the School District in 1986. Similar to N.S., if Laughton Q.C. appears in P.E.I., he should be thoroughly vetted with an eye to throwing him out of the province. Once I have received disclosure, I am quit of P.E.I. Hence , a voluntary turn-over by the Union would accomplish much, for the Union is faced with the very real possibility of paying the full amount of settlement if they continue with their intransigence.

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow)

 

ADDENDUM: No mention is made here of events involving both Harris & Co. and Bruce Laughton Q.C. in B.C. which culminated in fraud charges in the Federal Court of Chief Justice Paul Crampton: T1386-11 & T2360-14. The matter was to go before a judge in Ottawa and not before Vancouver Prothonotary Roger Lafrenieré for both cases. A judge rubber-stamped the first case attributing my presumed arguments without my knowledge. Lafrenieré was named in the second action which was, again, inappropriately handled by a second Ottawa judge in review.

 

QUOTE: '... "Trust Index": ...We don't trust politicians, we don't trust the press and we don't trust that things will be better for us than they were for our parents...  What should Conservative leadership candidates do about it? O.C. Andrew MacDougall  Feb. 18-2017

Ans. Go back to our parent's demand for ethical standards by seeing the Tory leaders breaking the media boycott on the nation-wide Employee's Case (Canada) by speaking out about this national disgrace which has decimated Canada's judicial system.

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

 

cc PMO/RCMP/ Premiers Wynne/ McNeil/ MacLauchlan/ Notley

     NS Barristers Society/ NS Supreme Court 458698