NOVA SCOTIA REPERCUSSIONS (APRIL 2017)

OPEN LETTER TO 'GO PUBLIC'-CBC

(Until a successive 21st Century P.M. to 'Ambassador' Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - APR.15 - 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 13 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 re- directed from 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.  This current challenge is to 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 Newsletter  reflects my reaction to NS 458698 (Apr.06) in which the NS inhabitants lost their government, their courts and their self respect and now join the failed provinces of QC & SK.

QUOTES:

A) '...ignoratio elenchi, the common fallacy in logic, by the media (and  the NS courts in 458698) of supposing a point proved by an argument proving something not at issue. Letter to editor

B)  The Justice Jennifer Hood Syndrome: A defeated litigant in a court case anywhere in Canada may now claim to be 'hooded' to account for judicial malfeasance.

C) 'There are people who are smart and there are people who think they are smart.' X Sue Grafton

D) 'You do not let the wicked become the example for innocent and uninitiated.' Home of the Rising Sun  James lee Burke

E) 'Rule benders cause more trouble in the long run than rule breakers. Rule benders always claim they do it to get things done. The fact is, they do it for their own convenience. They do it because they lack discipline, and the lack of discipline destroys organizations.' Think of a Number  John Verdun

F) 'The fact that the justice system is a cage that can no more keep the devil contained than a weather vane can stop the wind?' Ibid

G) '...The trick is to convince yourself early on that your cause is just and then forget about it, put all the indignation aside and get down to the hard work of winning. Winning is not so much about being right as it is about surviving the obstacle course, prevailing over the endless pitfalls.' The Halls of Justice  Lee Gruenfeld

H) 'There is no more honour in a legal dispute than there is in a wrestling match'. Dictator  Robert Harris

I) 'But there comes a moment in history when ignorance is no longer a forgivable offense... a moment when only wisdom has the power to absolve.' Inferno  Dan Brown

J) Trudeau makes an excellent 'ambassador' as witnessed at the JUNO Awards...but for those who like 'a little more meat on their government'; he's a disaster. From now on, I will refer to him as 'Ambassador Trudeau'

NS 458698 - April 06-2017

1) Where should I begin? Why, at the beginning. In 1986, when Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration favouring the West Vancouver School Board in the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo... 32 years of limbo to be exact where no compensation has been paid. In brief, I am still an employee of the WVSB with rights to 'deferred salary' for 32 years plus interest.

2) While  my case has not advanced legally from that point, the judiciary has taken a precipitous fall over which there is no recovery.

3) The modern phase was marked with the 'Cullen Creed' of 2013, In which B.C. Deputy Associate Chief Justice Alistair Cullen, on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument or quoting specific laws, expelled me from B.C. in this unresolved legal case.

4) The next stop focuses on Ottawa Superior Court Colin McKinnon whose April 23-2014 decision was blazoned across the front page of the Ottawa Citizen on April 29... You're treating the Justice System like a smorgasbord, he bawled (not a bad description of ubering) in a case (13-59060) to discuss 'all issues'; certainly something to which I had no objection as the defendant. He ignored the Employer's petition and instead, ruled me as being frivolous & vexatious, a charge that I first saw in his judgment.

5) I responded to those charges above in 14-61592 held before Justice Scott in October of 2014. Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer leaped into court without having filed a Notice of Appearance and ran up to the desk with, as it turned out, a second Order from McKinnon dated Sept 15 which I had never seen. That Order did not reference the first Order and, as such, was highly illegal. Scott ignored my filed presentation and would only refer to the new Order. Further, he did not file a Decision rather sticking to entering a 'stay of proceedings' so that the Appeal Court would not accept my challenge.

6) Regrettably, the Oversight bodies for the judges (Canadian Council of Judges) and the ON Law society for Hicks Morley (dropped representation of the Employer) failed to even acknowledge the complaints laid by me.

7) That failure was a direct cause of the creation of an allegedly fraudulent Employer factum which played through the QC (ran its own 'court within a court' duplicity) and SK courts (also played a 'duality' game) leading to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016 (both not heard) which has led to the defeat of both provinces where the inhabitants are left to get their justice on the streets.

8)That same Employer factum turned up in NS courts where the authorities (NS Barristers Society plus courts) refused to examine it for fraud.

9) As of April 06-2017, NS joins that unholy alliance in QC & SK with a distinctive difference.  The question in NS was 'case neutral' as it related to the constitutional question of imposed government legislation as it relates to court oversight. Resolution of the original case was to remain outside of NS.

10) This is where the unique feature entered the equation before Justice Hood ( whose removal from the bench I have called for in bringing the course of law into disrepute) in what is defined as ignoratio elenchi, the common fallacy in logic, of supposing a point proved by an argument proving something not at issue. In short, The Employer does not question the existence of the constitutional question; merely my right to present it without paying a specious surety. My late father under these circumstances, would have rapped out a terse 'play the puck and not the player'. In short, reasoned argument is to be displaced by political malfeasance as she assigned security costs  presumably based on the Employer's compromised factum without challenging the authenticity of that factum. Hence she has undermined the course of law to such an extent and degree, that I have coined the term 'hooded' after Justice Jennifer Hood. Bottom line? The inhabitants of NS are without a viable government, court or, most importantly, self respect. Paint a yellow streak down the elongated spine of this Maritime peninsula, if you will.

11) The law in general has no meaning any longer in Canada as the ramifications of this case are felt beyond NS borders. Filed statements sworn under oath no longer have any meaning. Disclosure is at the personal whim of a judge.

12) A new factum on a constitutional question is being filed in NS, this time 'against' the Union which has no cause to enter an objection similar to the Employer. Again, it is case-neutral. Should the Union wish to add to this question, they may provide the information to me for the purpose. Should they interfere in the manner paralleling the Employer, they risk future exposure to a possible action from the Employer in any final settlement. Further their opposition would be proof positive of a sweetheart deal. But why would they block my efforts? In the 11 day arbitration, the Union argument was confined to a 1/2 hour in which they correctly noted (ignored by arbitrator) that the imposed BILL 35 was 'in addition to' the Schools Act and did not displace any part of it including a teacher's competence (N.B. I was fired for 'whistleblowing' but that's another story). They also pointed out (on which the court later concurred) that there was no causal factor extant i.e. this perp...this crime.

13) The judicial chicanery in this case is going to be played out all across Canada as litigants get 'hooded'. I'm watching an Ottawa police 'battle of the arm bands' between those favouring the police in a police manslaughter charge and those favouring the Somali community. Both sides are already highly suspicious of the authorities...and for good reason if the ongoing Employee's Case is any example. No doubt it is the 'last hurrah' for NS Justice Jennifer Hood.

PLACARDS: A) WHY OBEY THE LAW? / JUDGES DON'T

B) CHINESE VISITOR TO CANADA: GEE, JUST LIKE CHINA,

COURTS OF LAW BUT NO JUSTICE!

 

PRYING APART THE COURTS

14) The original fraud of the 'bobbsey twins' McKinnon j and Scott j. escaped the overview committees as outlined above hence it lay to the Provinces of QC and SK for the scam to play out in this ubering technique. While the provinces became 'failed states' with the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada failure to hear my appeals in 2016 (36883 QC and 36993 SK); the matter of the Employer's  fraudulent 'Book of Authorities' which appears in NS 4586989 as well, has never been established with the Prime Minister (Ambassador Trudeau) ducking out. Hence the Justice System has effectively covered up this travesty...now including Nova Scotia.

15) Only a suit listing the Employer as Defendant in NS could have pried loose this Employer's factum. Indeed, considering the nature of the constitutional question, there was no need for them to make a presence. Even my own presence is redundant as the court is quite able, through Referencing, to decide the entire constitutional question apart from the litigants.

16) I attribute B.C.'s Harris & Co.'s  presence due to the grey eminence as a rogue B.C. law firm 'tail' is not about to wag the NS 'judicial dog' without backroom support. Most likely, the grey eminence was just continuing in the vein of activity in ON, QC, & SK without realizing the significant difference of this case in NS. Of course, Premier McNeil was willingly sucked into this whirlpool. That's why I called on the inhabitants of NS to speak out as now it is too late and every court hearing is compromised due to Hood's j. precipitate action. For that matter all of Canada is held hostage as no court hearing has any validity until Hood's actions are properly examined (not merely hushed up) with Hood's removal from the bench called for in the interim. Losing litigants can now claim to be 'hooded'.

17) The Employee's Case is a mere drop in the bucket and counts for little in the legal scheme of things. It is the ramifications of this issue in other court cases which it promulgates. A short history of some of those cases follows:

a) Louis Riel, a father of Confederation (Manitoba) was hanged for treason in 1885 when he sought to repeat his performance in SK. 'Good thing, too, for that 'murderer'' (as my late Winnipeg-born father stated) was an opinion reinforced in 'Orange' ON with QC counter-balancing the equation with Riel as a hero defending cultural rights. Ottawa has a high school named Louis Riel. The issue divided the country.

b) The Senator Mike Duffy criminal trial of 2015 divided the people from the justice system. Former PM Harper had the RCMPP (political police) lay the charge which was divided into two parts - before and after the 2015 election - which led to a Tory loss. The new Liberal PM made it perfectly clear that they did not want the Senate instigators 'put on trial' hence Duffy 'walked' and got his Senate seat back along with two other persecuted Tory Senators. Just a bad smell remains.

c) The sides are lining up in a pivotal case in Ottawa in which a Somali man was killed in a takedown with the police officer concerned charged with manslaughter. Both sides would be very aware of my 13 year Placard protest in downtown Ottawa (only the anti-abortion interests have a longer record) pillorying the Justice System. The media is unsuccessfully trying to mount a 'give due process a chance' campaign. This is the same media which has run a boycott on the Employee's Case. This police case will have long run implications and threatens to shatter the country let alone the justice system. Similar to trench warfare where forces always tried to outflank their enemy; the two sides, due to artillery and machine guns, dug in down all of Eastern France. Will the two sides in this police manslaughter case expand their wrist band campaign clear across the country?

 

APPELLANT'S ORAL ARGUMENT - N.S. 458698 - APRIL 21-2017

(placed in abeyance)

QUOTE: 'Law school, as he told it, was largely a matter of poring over judicial opinions. Basically, you read these things without any understanding of what the topic is, or why its relevant...We're not learning how to practice law, we're learning how to become lawyers.'

The Rise & Fall of Great Powers  Tim Rachman

 

BACKGROUND:  employescasecanada.ca  'NS inhabitants now to be hooded' (see 11)

1) In June of 1985, senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow, was laid-off for economic reasons under the auspices of the imposed  BILL 35. The matter was never resolved.

2) No compensation has been paid although this case has been before over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) on 4 occasions in which hearings were denied.

3) In 2013, the Appellant was expelled from B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to a judge' forcing him into other venues including the current case in Nova Scotia.

 

4) In 2014 before Ontario Superior Court justice, Colin McKinnon, the Employer launched an action 13-59060 to discuss 'all issues' declaring  that the Employer did not owe any compensation. McKinnon j. ignored that feature choosing instead to label this defendant as being frivolous & vexatious. He complicated his April 23-2014 Decision by issuing a second Decision on September 15 which did not reference the first decision.

5) This fraudulent action was played out through courts in QC and SK which added their own brand of corruption including two trips to the SCofC in 2016. Today, both provinces are 'failed states' where no inhabitant can expect 'due process' in their respective courts.

NOVA SCOTIA

6) In 2017, a case was entered in N.S. by me limited to the constitutional question (c.q.) posed by the Employer in ON 13-59060 and which this Appellant was in complete agreement. As no compensatory features were to be included, it was expected that the Employer would not bother filing any rebuttal. Compensation would require further legal action outside of NS.

7) The Employer chose to file an objection requesting two dates - April 06 (surety which was assigned) and April 21(main event which is held in abeyance) - in which they requested the court to dismiss the c.q. on both occasions. Their objection appeared based not on the c.q. per se, but on the Appellant's right to raise this c.q. Chasing litigants out of court with sureties is a legal 'no-no' but is common procedure in this case.

8) It is submitted here that an eminence gris  (see web) has persuaded the government of Premier McNeil and his courts to sacrifice their credibility in much the same fashion as QC & SK in order to maintain unanimity. Premier McNeil has been kept fully apprised of these events as they unroll. In brief, a rogue B.C. legal outfit was able to turn the judiciary of NS on its head with the assigning of a surety without validation of their compromised factum.

APPELLANT'S  ARGUMENT

9) The B.C. Harris & Co. focusing on the McKenzie j. Decision(s) is rife with fraud. Regrettably, the NS Barrister' Society ducked out of analyzing gross discrepancies at my request. The court also  refused my request for a voir dire for the same purpose in which I also called for disclosure, an ongoing request ignored by over 50 judges for 32 years.

10) Without the two requests fulfilled above by Justice Hood which she didn't, the courts may not act on any request of the Employer without compromising the entire judicial structure of Nova Scotia.

11) On April 06, Justice Suzanne 'Hood' took that irreparable step which collapses NS courts.

12) A second action has been filed in NS listing the B.C. Union as defendant although they are hardly likely to object to an argument used by them in the original arbitration. Further, any such rejection could have rebound effects from an Employer seeking to recoup eventual settlement monies.

 

Premier McNeil sacrifices court credibility for negotiating principle

SILLY BUGGERS

13) Premier McNeil and the Union leaders are playing a game of 'silly buggers' at the expense of individual litigants such as this targeted litigant from B.C..

14) Why, it needs be asked, should the court seek to undermine the single most important constitutional question designed for the well being of the court and the citizenry at large; namely, what is the relationship between imposed legislation and the courts? Answer: The government and the Union leaders use this conflict as a 'bargaining chip' as the government seeks to gain advantage while the Union leaders in turn justify their existence to the rank & file by turfing their membership into the streets. The Employee's Case illustrates what happens to an individual litigant so caught up between these so-called antagonistic forces.

15) The above Union situation is not unlike the Nazi death trains in which 'head counts' were all important. If one inmate were released, a second must take his or her place. One very brave priest, for example, took the place in line to the gas chambers of a family man. The principle in this case is why I have labeled the matter as the West Vancouver School Trustee's 'final solution' and why teachers should wear a symbolic 'yellow star'. In brief, in a lay-off  situation, it is secondary to the Union as to whom is being laid-off (no union leaders to be sure!) as long as the Union is not burdened with the heavy legal costs of a court challenge by a single litigant. That's why a litigant seeking to challenge an Employer's action must hire a lawyer paid by his own funds ($10,000 plus).

16) Premier McNeil and his courts plus the Union leaders have shown their true colours and contempt for the rank and file of NS inhabitants in the above action with repercussions right across Canada as NS now joins QC & SK as 'failed states'. The Employee's Case now looms large over every NS case as is the case in QC & SK.

17) The advantage of imposed legislation in Education is that a teacher may be given a 'lay-off' notice on the last day of school in June as happened to this targeted B.C. West Vancouver senior teacher under B.C.'s BILL 35. For your colleagues, once out the door for the summer holidays, you are out of their mind. By this time of year, provinces would already have such imposed legislation on file hence May 31 is lay-off target day for teachers. If you are so afflicted, please accept my condolences...been there, done that. Besides, it is likely the only condolence you will get with colleagues grateful as to 'but for the grace of God, there go I'. The purpose of your own paid for lawyer is to get the Board to rescind the lay-off in the month of June ($10,000?). Otherwise, 'lots of luck'  brother or sister.

 

April 12-2017

 

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

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

The Law Courts                                                                   Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

1815 Upper Water St.                                                      tel: 613-521-1739

Halifax, NS  B3J 1S7                                                          

sent by fax: 902-424-0524   cc Premier McNeil     employescasecanada.ca

 

TOPIC: Complaint against NS Superior Court Judge, Suzanne Hood (Apr. 06 H.D.)

 

BACKGROUND

1) The complaint made against the above judge for her egregious behaviour  is perhaps the most serious complaint ever made against a judge in Canadian civil jurisprudence.

2) While not in attendance, this appellant filed a complete rebuttal to a two-fold action filed by the Defendant B.C. Employer in the above case in which the second hearing was slated for April 21 before a second judge. Both cases called for the dropping of the Appellant's case limited to a constitutional question (c.q.) without case specifics (for that would take place outside of NS in another venue).

3) Indeed, the presence of both litigants is superfluous to the c.q. regarding the relationship between imposed legislation and court oversight; surely the most important judicial question in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. The matter would be dealt with solely by the courts through Referencing with the 32 year Employee's Case with its genesis in B.C. merely being the vehicle to accord with our adversarial legal system.

 

SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST JUSTICE HOOD

4) '...ignoratio elenchi, the common fallacy in logic, by the media (and  the NS courts in 458698) of supposing a point proved by an argument proving something not at issue. The c.q. is not in question; merely the right of this personage to raise the question. No law was quoted nor reference made by Hood j. in 'conditionally' denying this Appellant's position. She would seek to hide her perfidy behind an unexamined Employer factum rife with fraud.

5) As pointed out to Justice Hood in writing, any action taken by her must be preceded by disclosure from the Employer and a proper evaluation of the Employer factum which was surreptitiously covered up in QC & SK leading to their demise as failed states. (Supreme Court of Canada 2016: 36883 QC & 36993 SK). It is that selfsame Employer factum now being floated in N.S. with the NS Barrister's Society ducking the examination request leaving it for the court. Hood j. failed on both accounts as she makes no mention of my protest on that level and, therefore, should be removed from the bench for, want of another expression, incompetency.

6) This first hearing was ostensibly arranged by the Employer for the purpose of a specious 'surety' which is a copy of a couple of previous court stunts elsewhere. I paid but did not get 'due process'; rather 'duly processed' better explains treatment meted out to me in other venues. The main problem is that the claim relates to corrupt events in Ontario which still remain extant due to the failure of the oversight bodies to investigate. The second hearing (now held in abeyance by the court) on April 21 is the main event for which I would appear and asked previously that any action taken by Hood j. be available for consideration in that court held before a different judge. That request is now to be stillborn due to her precipitate action.

7) The proper course for Justice Hood would have been to either cite the Employer for 'bringing the course of justice into disrepute' or, as is commonly accepted in today's justice system, to invite the Employer to withdraw their objection permitting the court to proceed with the c.q. Her failure in the above regard considering the background in this case brings into focus the value of a sworn affidavit in any court in Canada. As such, the law and justice system in Canada is moribund until proper action is taken against Justice Hood for 'bringing the course of justice into disrepute' with her apparently innocuous action.

8) It matters little whether Justice Hood was acting under direction from a Chief Justice, an eminence gris (Old Boys Club) or Premier McNeil; as it is her name on the Order. As matters stand, no Federal or provincial election has any meaning until this matter is sorted out. Her action is 'the nail' which eventually, as it works its way up in the parable, leads to the loss of a kingdom.