JUMP TO HOME PAGE

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND REGISTRY OBFUSCATION

FEB. 25-2018

 

TO: Clare Henderson                                 FROM: Roger Callow -self represented litigant

PEI Director, Court Services                                  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

1 Harbourside Access Road                                   employeescasecanada.ca

PO Box 2000, Charlottetown  PEI C1A 7N8

 

MESSAGE:

Quote: '...As we cannot provide legal advice specific to your matters, I would strongly encourage you to speak to a lawyer to get advice and direction....' been there, done that when in 2004, my lawyer claimed that I had exhausted all remedy under the law in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation had been paid (includes pension rights - 10 years now)

1) Acknowledgment of your two page cliché letter takes this whole issue back to 're-inventing the wheel' begun over a year and a half ago in PEI although with different Registry signatures. Premier and Justice Minister MacLauchlan has been kept fully apprised of events reminiscent of Joe Kennedy insisting that son President John Kennedy appoint his brother as Justice Minister...see where President Trump went wrong?

2) As the PEI Justice System has won the booby hatch award for procrastination; a separate heading PEI REGISTRY OBFUSCATION has been posted under 2018 on my web. Included in that account  is the letter from November 01 which you note in passing along with a 2-page letter to MacLauchlan dated MAY 02-2016 / DECEMBER 05-2016 (2nd Request) / JANUARY 02-2017 (3rd Request)/ MARCH 22-2017 (4th Request) cc P.M. Trudeau which I include which illustrates the speciousness of your action as it is clear that I was on the road to resolving Registry problems as I do in all other provinces where this case has surfaced. You would have me starting over from the beginning when it is clear from my accounts that my submission was a work in progress.

3) The point I wish to make here is that PEI residents are badly served under the dictatorship of MacLauchlan. In 2017, I filed two actions in NS which did not go my way. That is not the point here; rather In NS, I received the Decision of a judge and not Registry personnel acting in that capacity as is the case here in PEI. Even Senator Duffy of PEI, whom should know better from his own criminal case exposure, would remain mute with this 'potato patch mentality'.

4) The current NS Teacher Strike (see web FEBRUARY 2018 ) illustrates how vulnerable professional teachers let alone any individual is before a capricious government:

Yours truly (Roger Callow)                                     In future, stick to snail mail.________________

 

NOVA SCOTIA TEACHERS STRIKE

FEB.23-2018  SEE employeescasecanada.ca FEBRUARY-2018 by 'The Outlawed Canadian' in a 33 year battle to get compensation after being laid-off under the imposed B.C. BILL 35 in June of 1985.

1) I had the fortune or rather misfortune of visiting NS Courts on two  occasions in 2017 in which I had asked for teacher support stripped to a constitutional question which affect all union members (as well as provinces e.g. carbon tax) in Canada.... See web for full account

 

POST IN STAFFROOM - e-mail colleagues

 

- o -

 

DECEMBER 05-2016  SECOND REQUEST  Fax: 902-368-4416

JANUARY 02-2017     THIRD REQUEST

MARCH 22-2017        FOURTH REQUEST

 

May 02-2016

 

TO: Premier & Justice Minister Wade MacLauchlan P.E.I.  FROM: Roger Callow -Appellant

Fifth Floor South-Shaw Bdlg.                                                                      2001-1285 Cahill Drive E.

95 Rochford St. P.O. Box 2000                                                                  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Charlottetown, PE  C1A 7N8                                                                  

                                    REFERENCE: employeescasecanada.ca     

cc P.M. Trudeau

 

THAT LETTER READ IN PART:    

COMPLAINT:

1) As the Appellant in a legal matter focused on disclosure, I appear to be filibustered by the Charlottetown Superior Court in receiving a docket number.

2) If this filibustering parallels events in other provinces in this highly contentious labour case with its genesis in British Columbia, credibility of the PEI courts may be at stake.  Some Chief Justices in other venues seek to hide behind Registry clerks in order to obviate the assignment of a docket number in order that a legal matter may not be given 'due process'. Judges, not clerks - it is submitted here - should run the court system. As such, your office is negatively affected with any such judicial malfeasance.

 

RETURN OF DOCUMENTS (received March 20-2017) WITH FILING FEE FROM  PEI Registry clerk T. MacPherson Q.C. in which the return letter reads in part: 'As I have indicated to you in previous correspondence, documentation which is non-compliant with the PEI Rules of Civil Procedure will not be accepted for filing and will not be assigned a docket number....' The returned materials are being sent directly to Premier & Justice Minister, W. MacLauchlan, to assign a document number, or alternatively, a different Registry clerk.

 

MESSAGE (March 22-2017)

1) Recently, I called for the suspension of a PEI Registry clerk, Terri Macpherson QC, for obfuscation in the registry of this case. No doubt she was acting on orders, possibly from yourself as Justice Minister which is why I asked for P.M. Trudeau to act on this complaint.

2) Combining your role of Premier & Justice Minister is an egregious act. Can you imagine what President Trump would be able to get away with if it were not for the state courts?

3) Your action of combining the two roles above is reminiscent of the President Kennedy era when father Joe Kennedy - he of dubious ambassadorial background - ordered that the President was to appoint his brother as Attorney General. It worked when Bobby K. called in the Hearst Newspaper chain to effectively kill a story on the dalliances of the President.

4) Of course as a Premier  you would like to control the matter of imposed legislation. And that is what you are doing which does not suit the needs of individual citizens in P.E.I.

5) For example, as a victim of imposed legislation (B.C.'s BILL 35) as a senior teacher at maximum salary, I was 'laid off' in 1985 in what I term as the West Vancouver School Trustee's 'final solution' . No compensation was paid (includes pension rights) thanks to over 50 judges across Canada including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions. The matter of this unresolved labour case has destroyed court systems in such as QC and SK under Premiers Chouinard and Wall. Further, School Trustees across Canada could resolve their financial problems by disposing of senior teachers (it's a two for one ratio with beginning teacher salaries). As such those senior teachers would find themselves unemployable in their given profession.

6) It would seem that as Premier & Justice Minister, that you would take matters one step further; deny me access to PEI Courts making your Justice System into a 'Court of Star Chambers' where access is defined by you as Premier ...and that will never do but will happen unless PEI citizens MAKE NOISE... and make it NOW.

7) As for our effete P.M., how many provinces does he need to lose on court credibility before the people of the nation claim: 'The P.M. ain't  got no clothes on'? As matters stand, the P.M. should consider imposing some sort of trusteeship over PEI courts unless there is immediate change as requested below.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

8) To assign a docket number to the case that I have posted against the B.C. Union concerned as I believe I have responded properly to all 'realistic' revisions asked by your Registry.

 

Yours truly Roger Callow

 

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

 

November 01-2017

 

TO: Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island

       ATTN: Registrar

       PO Box 2000   42 Water Street

       Charlottetown, PE C1A 7N8

       tel: (902) 368-6000   fax: (902) 368-6123         sent by fax (1 page)

 

FROM: Roger Callow

              Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

             

MESSAGE: I require your assistance with confirming the forms and fees for proceeding in court by application. The following perspective of 75.1.11(1) best defines my approach:

 

SUMMARY TRIAL Procedure  75.1.11(1) At a summary trial, the evidence and argument shall be presented as follows, subject to any direction under subrule 75.1.09(7): (a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence by affidavit. (b) A party who is adverse in interest may cross-examine the deponent of any affidavit served by the plaintiff. (c) The plaintiff may re-examine any deponent who is crossexamined under this subrule for not more than 10 minutes. (d) When any cross-examinations and re-examinations of the plaintiff=s deponents are concluded, the defendant shall adduce evidence by affidavit. (e) A party who is adverse in interest may cross-examine the deponent of any affidavit served by a defendant. (f) A party shall complete all of the party=s cross-examinations within 50 minutes. (g) A defendant may re-examine any deponent who is crossexamined under this subrule for not more than 10 minutes. (h) When any cross-examinations and re-examinations of the defendant=s deponents are concluded, the plaintiff may, with leave of the trial judge, adduce any proper reply evidence.

(i) After the presentation of evidence, each party may make oral argument for not more than 45 minutes. (2) The trial judge may extend a time provided in subrule (1). (3) A party who intends to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit at the summary trial shall, at least 10 days before the date fixed for trial, give notice of that intention to the party who filed the affidavit, who shall arrange for the deponent=s attendance at the trial. Judgment after Summary Trial (4) The judge shall grant judgment after the conclusion of the summary trial

1) It would appear that Rule 38 (14E) 'before a judge'; Rule39 Evidence of Applications; Rule 43 'supported by an affidavit' are relevant to a case based solely on acquiring disclosure.

2) The Judicial Review Act Rule 68 would require Form 68A . In addition an original process in a statement of claim would include Forms 14A, 14B, 14D or 14C.

3) I am more familiar with Ontario Forms and Procedures from which PE has copied its law. For example, is a back cover required in PE? Colour of Plaintiff - buff?  Anything else I should consider?

4) In listing the fee would you total the amount of the cheque to be made out (to Minister of Finance? )

Once a file number is assigned, I presume a one hour teleconferencing date may be set up by the court.

 

5)Thank-you for your co-operation.  Information may be e-mailed or faxed.

 

Roger Callow

 

November 15 - no response; see letter to PEI Premier & Justice Minister, Wade MacLauchlan