JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

NOVEMBER - 2018

 

November 02-2018  ( 'addendum' to OCT.24 fax to Premier Ford )

1) Yup, me again, noting that the ON court response in the above noted case is long overdue. CV 18000 76950 0000 (Ottawa Supreme Court)

2) You want ideas on how to save money. Here's one in which you can save $20 million as that is the default claim (not against the Employer; rather the government) in this civil fraud case.

3) My 'without prejudice offer' is to drop my civil fraud claim including the two named ON judges whom, according to recent media accounts, still continue to mess up. In exchange, the court calls in the RCMP to seize the disclosure at the heart of this matter. What's not to love about that deal? At any rate, don't sit there doing nothing, as ON court credibility is suspended for all legal cases until this matter is straightened out by none other than Premier Ford.

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow) plaintiff

 

NOVEMBER 11-2018

 

TO: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau     FROM: Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian'         

PERSONAL                                                                 Ottawa,ON  employeescasecanada.ca

 

2 pages by fax 613-941-6900                                                              

 

REFERENCE: Vancouver Court S 188996 Sept. 20-2018 Hinckson  cj plus letter dated NOVEMBER 10-2018 to Vancouver Deputy Register, K. Mohammed. SEE web 2018 - Chief Justice Hinckson cj: fraud. (Sub-heading)

 

MESSAGE:

    From the enclosed letter,  it would seem that the hapless B.C. NDP Premier Horgan government are over their depth with the above case leaving me to appeal to yourself to take action. To be sure, if President Trump were to read this account sent to you, he would insist that all U.S. trade deals and other legal matters with Canada would be held in U.S. Courts. Can you blame him? Is that what you want? You are fond of claiming that Canada respects 'due process' not merely being 'duly processed' hence here is your chance to substantiate your ethics in a very basic way.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

1) To apply some sort of trusteeship over the Vancouver Supreme Court regarding this Hinckson cj colossal blunder until this matter is sorted out. Surely Canadians at large should be able to expect much better than this piece of legal malfeasance dished up by Hinckson cj.

2) To order the RCMP to seize the pivotal disclosure which underlies this case and has been denied to me by over 50 judges in the past 33 years leaving me with an unresolved case where no compensation has been paid. Indeed, provide that obviously criminal information and I submit my civil cases would be at an end across Canada for everything that proceeds from a fraud is 'null and void'.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Roger Callow  plaintiff

 

encl. NOVEMBER 10 letter  (below)

 

NOVEMBER 10-2018

TO: Kazim Mohammed - Deputy Registrar Vancouver Supreme Court

FROM:  Roger Callow Plaintiff  employeescasecanada.ca  2018  Hinckson cj 'fraud'

MESSAGE:

1) Acknowledgment of your letter dated Nov.01-2018 and received Nov.09-2018 is made which states in part: We received the following document  in the mail and it cannot be filed for the following reason: 1. We cannot file the Notice of Civil Claim (fraud Action against Hinckson cj) as you have been deemed a vexatious litigant; therefore, you cannot initiate any proceedings in any registry of the Supreme Court without prior leave of the court....

RESPONSE: Whom do you think you are giving the above judicial finding...a judge? I think not. Hence I have directed a copy of this account to A.G. David Edy calling for your immediate dismissal for usurping the judicial process. cc D. Edy A.G.

 

2) Space limits a telling of the factum but the web site listed above: Concluding Remarks #49-#52 and the Letter to D. Edy also included dated Sept.27-2018 B.C. Justice System Crashes and Burns - NDP Future at Stake are pertinent here.

 

3) This account focuses on Res Ipso Loquitor for which neither MacKenzie (2010) nor Hinckson cj which repeats her error of not calling for argument nor quoting pertinent laws, chose to expel me from the courts 'for reasons best known to themselves' in an unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid. In brief, neither judge gave me the opportunity to address the court on this point of law explaining why I requested A.G. Edy to immediately suspend Hinckson cj. Edy's silence (plus Premier Horgan) speaks legions on this point.

 

Res Ipso Loquitor Latin for "the thing speaks for itself."

 

Overview In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other plausible explanations. In the vernacular, this term is likened to the patient whom goes for a hospital arm operation and comes away without his foot instead.

 

Prima Facie Case To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence The court noted negligence when they quashed the arbitration in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor.

2. It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant's control. As the senior teacher laid off under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (lay-off for economic reasons only); I had no say in that process

3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. If I did, then disclosure is called for which over 50 judges including Hinckson cj. should have called for or ordered the RCMP to act. He ignored all issues limiting his response to a 'bastardized' interpretation of the 'MacKenzie Creed'.

 

4) A.G. Edy's inaction is the sole source of this judicial malfeasance. Premier Horgan should replace him and order this matter back to the court with a special investigator.  cc Premier Horgan / media

 

NOVEMBER 12-2018

 

TOPIC: PM'S hidden costs / Trudeau keeping real carbon costs a close secret O.S. p.8

              Columnist Brian Lilley

 

QUOTES: A) Why don't sharks eat lawyers (and judges) ....professional courtesy

B) In the Seven Blind Men of Hindustan; each one describes the elephant according to touch. 'Why the elephant is surely like a tree' claims the one grasping a leg while a second feeling the elephant's side claims that 'the elephant is surely like a wall' and so it goes each arguing loud and long not realizing that while 'all were in the right and all were in the wrong'.

 

MESSAGE:

1) Lilley's clearly enunciated article covers most of the points included on a regular basis by the Tory media although I do note that he includes the government's cut on this tax to be the 15% GST ; an important point often over-looked.

2) The closest secret of all, however, is the method of presentation of this tax being in the form of imposed legislation parallel to the recent use of the notwithstanding clause by the Ford government which seeks to evade parliamentary oversight. Rule by fiat is essentially rule by dictatorship.

3) As a victim of imposed legislation (senior teacher lay-off in West Vancouver, B.C. under the imposed BILL 35 (1985) which was quickly rescinded (banana-republic action) left me exposed to court chicanery over the next 33 years where no compensation has been paid in this unresolved labour matter. Even BILL 35 provides for that contingency but a reading of the employeescasecanada.ca SEE 2018: Sub-heading; Chief Justice Hinckson-Fraud would freeze me out of B.C. courts on any level. (SEE NOVEMBER 11-2018 under sub-heading NOVEMBER-2018) for this account.

4) In short, my case is a legal football and my appeal to P.M. Trudeau (NOVEMBER 11-2018) is likely to fall on deaf ears as he needs court support for his imposed action and is not about to order in the RCMP to obtain the all-important disclosure in this case. (The highly political RCMP leadership see fit to criminally investigate a 'hissy fit' between two Senator hockey wives but cannot see their way to criminally investigate a legal matter which led to the demise of the Canadian Justice System in 2004 with their failure to hear the above issue under the heading of 'ultimate remedy'.)

5) The anti-media boycott on this national story is the key and such as Brian Lilley is invited to break that boycott in absence of his colleague, O.S. columnist, Mark Bonokoski. His inaction of this national story is now over as I now seek the action of two Muslim columnists in the same paper with first-hand experience of dysfunctional countries: Farzana Hassan & Tarek Fatah on the role of the anti-individual media. That battle may be quite short.

6) We live in a newspaper democracy where the quid pro quo is that nations keep their news to themselves. For example, Pakistan is not interested in what appears in a Canadian newspaper disparaging them as long as the matter is confined to the Canadian media. Vice versa applies as well as an UBER story of Senator players dissing their coach has no play in California but became a big issue when promulgated in Canada. Will Hassan and Fatah be able to report on a highly controversial topic from Canada, in Canada? Their personal consciences are on the line with this international appeal.

7) I have jogged SK Premier Moe on the weekend regarding the non-response of the Saskatoon action which I laid a few months back. In that action, I seek to raise the constitutional question which the NS courts flubbed in 1917: namely, do the courts have oversight powers over imposed legislation which is a universal for all such causes. The Employer in my case answers in the negative.

8) Why do the courts fear this 'Model T' approach to asking constitutional questions which would take one week to answer as opposed to the customary 5 years amid much billable time bullshit to achieve much the same answer?  Reread that sentence to get your answer. Hence I am anathema on a scale hitherto unknown to Canada's bloated Judiciary. That is the story that the Canadian media would censor. If they do not act, foreign interests not necessarily aligned with Canada's interest can expect to fill the void.

9) Read carefully my letter to P.M. Trudeau and the 'mail-out' on B.C. Chief Justice of the Vancouver Supreme Court, C.E. Hinckley above NOVEMBER-2018 ...and weep....

 

NOVEMBER 14-2018

KHASHOGGIED

 

REFERENCE: employeescasecanada.ca  2018 Sub-titles: OCTOBER-2018 / NOVEMBER-2018

 

BACKGROUND: The 33 year unresolved labour matter went before over 50 judges including 4 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) in which B.C. senior teacher, Roger Callow, was laid off for economic reasons under the imposed BILL 35 (B.C.-1985). No compensation (includes pension rights for 12 years) has been paid. The SCofC imploded in 2004 by failing to hear this challenge under the rule of ultimate remedy. This national story has been exacerbated by the boycott of the anti-employee media on this lead legal story for which Ottawa Sun columnist, Mark Bonokoski, is the symbol of my declared press demise in 2018. Two other O.S. columnists, Farzana Hassan and Tarek Fateh, two Muslims with firsthand experience of failed government infrastructure in Pakistan are now challenged to break this boycott of the anti-individual media in Canada as now the issue transcends national politics.

 

KHASHOGGY  is the story of a Newspaper Reporter assassinated in the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Turkey which is typical of all major embassies world-wide including the local Instanbul Embassy interests. The Canadian metaphor (without the blood) is to 'Khashoggi' one's legal case (after assigning all legal fees against them) to dispose of troublesome litigants such as this plaintiff in the above case:

(Vancouver Court S 188996 Sept. 20-2018 Hinckson  cj ) chose to expel this litigant for 'reasons best known to himself, not calling for argument nor quoting pertinent laws' in an action laid by this plaintiff against the Employer/Union in West Vancouver, B.C. concerned. I was then thwarted in suing the judge by the Registry.

 

Should I have been given such opportunity, I would have replied accordingly:

Res Ipso Loquitor Latin for "the thing speaks for itself."

Overview In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other plausible explanations. In the vernacular, this term is likened to the patient whom goes for an arm operation and comes away without his foot instead.

Prima Facie Case To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence The court noted negligence when they quashed the arbitration in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor.

2. It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant's control. As the senior teacher laid off under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (lay-off for economic reasons only); I had no say in that process

3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. If I did, then disclosure is called for which over 50 judges including Hinckson cj. should have called for or ordered the RCMP to act. He ignored all issues limiting his response to a 'bastardized' interpretation of the 'MacKenzie Creed'. (SEE web)

 

4) A.G. Edy's inaction is the sole source of this judicial malfeasance. Premier Horgan should replace him and order this matter back to the court with a special investigator.(The entire Canadian NDP structure collapsed.)

 

     A similar $20 million action has been filed in Ontario which includes the malfeasance of 2 judges plus the Employer's ON legal representative due to oversight body failures. Nothing is happening which is alright by Premier Doug Ford in a personal letter to me. (SEE web) (OFFER: produce disclosure & I will drop suit)

 

    The SK courts under Premier Moe are sitting on a constitutional challenge i.e. Do the courts have oversight powers over imposed legislation which circumvent parliament? e.g. Carbon Tax / BILL 35