APRIL-2019

 

ALBERTA VOTERS

(election April 2019)

REFERENCE: employeescasecanada.ca

 

HOW DOES THE NDP IN AB EXPECT TO BE TREATED

FAIRLY BY 'OTTAWA' WHEN THEIR TREATMENT IN

THE EDMONTON QUEEN'S COURT REGISTRY ABETTED

BY THE PREMIER NOTLEY GOVERNMENT AS EVIDENCED

BY THE ABOVE LABOUR CASE INVOLVING FRAUD

REFLECTS AN ABJECT ABANDONMENT OF GOOD JUDICIAL

PRACTICES IN DENYING INDIVIDUALS 'DUE PROCESS OF LAW'

WHICH COULD JUST AS EASILY READ 'PROCESSED BY LAW'?

 

(Of particular interest to pensioners and teachers in this unresolved labour matter (no compensation paid for 34 years) involving, as it does, imposed legislation. No legal answer = a legal answer in this kafkaesque world)

 

NDP voters may choose to 'vote with their feet'

under these conditions.

 

                   PLACARD: ALBERTA ELECTION  1) BOZOS IN AND BOZOS OUT?  or

                                                                          2) BOZOS OUT AND BOZOS IN?

 

POST IN STAFFROOM

 

 

 

REBUTTAL of PLAINTIFF, ROGER CALLOW to HI-JACKING OF EDMONTON COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH - APRIL 05-2019 (3 Pages) employeescasecanada.ca 2019 ALBERTA COURT HIJACKING

 

 Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice D.R.G. Thomas

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta    Docket: 1903 06964    Registry: Edmonton  April 04-2019

 

Citation: Callow v West Vancouver Teacher's Association (Local School District Number),2019

AQB 236 (Why isn't the second Defendant listed here?)

 

Between:

Roger Callow

and

Board of School Trustees and West Vancouver Teacher's Association (two defendants) (Local School District Number 45)

 

Copies to Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Canadian Attorney General D. Lametti to take those steps necessary to quash the above document and suspend Justice Thomas for 'running a court within a court'. If the above document had been written after a one hour hearing where it would become part of the judicial record; the protocol of court justice could be considered to have been served. As it is, Justice Thomas has bastardized a number of key points in research and usurped court processes. A copy is also sent to MPP Jason Kenney.

 

ITEMIZED RESPONSE OF THE PLAINTIFF TO 1903 06964

I Introduction

(1) There was considerable 'to-ing' and fro-ing' between myself and the court including two telephone calls from them relating to the technical matter of the proper forms. Those calls were received after notification to Premier Notley was made.

(2) March 20-2019 URGENT For File No. cc Premier Notley (R.W. Callow)

(3) That request at an attempted filing number was referred to Thomas j. for 'abusive litigation' purposes. Why would the mere assignment of a docket number prompt this charge? Whom is it that referred this matter to Thomas j. for such a purpose and why? Premier Notley? If so, I do not see any copy enclosed to her and yet she is the logical source.

Statement of facts relied on:  my 8 point AFFIDAVIT (FACTS) concluding with

8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy . No compensation has been paid (including pension rights) due to 'Mueller' actions by over 50 judges and now including Thomas j. Habeas corpus is at the root of all law.

Without seeing that key documentation, the court is acting blindly to this unresolved 34 year labour issue. In essence, what Thomas j. is doing here is acting as an agent for the Defendants whom refuse to provide the necessary documents (for 34 years).

 

Remedy sought:

(1) This section on page 2 is taken verbatim from my Statement of Claim and summarizes the entire case which Thomas j. has chosen to ignore.

1) ...disclosure which is a precursor to the fraud charges with B.C. Chief Justice Hinckley being an extension of that charge and the constitutional question in which the Employer does not acknowledge the oversight powers of the court vis a vis imposed legislation. The plaintiff was laid off under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 (1985); the only teacher to be a victim of this legislation before it was rescinded in typical banana republic fashion. The case remains unresolved with no compensation having been paid due to the chicanery of over 50 judges including four inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now add Thomas j.

(5) '...There is absolutely nothing in Mr. Callow's materials of his dispute, such as it is defined in the Statement of Claim, which relates to Alberta.' Thomas j. The question of jurisdiction always comes up in other provinces and is promptly dropped in the Decision after my explanations in court; a court hearing which Thomas j. would deny me for unconscionable reasons as I believe that he has perverted case law in order to justify himself. There are sections in the law under 'referencing' and 'to promote the cause of justice' which can be applied but that will take a very different kind of judge than the ones assigned to this case.

 

II Mr. Callow's Litigation History

(8) Obviously, Thomas j. did not read any of the detailed matters discussed in the plaintiff's web site: employeescasecanada.ca  His mangled account here does not include the fact that the arbitration in support of the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, was quashed by the court and ordered back to arbitration; an arbitration which was never heard due to the Employer refusing to recognize oversight powers of the courts under imposed legislation making this case the single most important legal matter in Canada. As matters stand, 'no legal decision is a legal decision' under these preposterous terms. The imposed carbon tax is a key example with this unresolved case the only precedent in that regard.

(9) The first attempt to remedy this matter after being expelled from B.C. Courts in 2010 'for reasons best known to a judge' was unsuccessful before the Federal Court leaving me in limbo.

(10) In 2012 Mr. Callow sued in Ontario... The flamboyant statement of Justice McKinnon whom is one of the named judges associated with the civil fraud charges in Ontario and Saskatchewan appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on April 29-2014 and also appears on the internet under the biased control of Google. If Thomas had taken the time to read that legal material, he would have learned that I was the Defendant in ONSC 2547 as correctly noted in his account: West Vancouver School District No. 45 v Callow. That is a basic contradiction which this prejudiced judge could not be bothered with. The reason McKinnon j. was cited to the Canadian Council of Judges (recently heavily criticized by Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner) along with a second judge, R. Scott is because he wrote a second judgment a week before another trial in September before that second judge without referencing the first judgment. As both were Federal Court judges, the matter was referred to the Canadian Council of Judges which never acknowledged this fraudulent malfeasance.

(11) Thomas j. concluded that I was re-litigating matters already decided in B.C.; a popular mantra among many judges handling this case without detailing which matters and how they were handled. I am still without compensation which belongs to this writer under any of the following: the collective bargaining process, BILL 35 legislation, or any other legislative scheme dealing with employee compensation. Cover-up is not part of that process but that is what Thomas j. and every other judge assigned this case has committed the court processes.

(12) Mr. Callow next targeted Quebec and Saskatchewan. His filings were struck out: The Supreme Court of Canada is known as a 'great burial ground of civil cases'; most are refused a hearing. Yet in this case both challenges included judicial malfeasance complicated by the fact that the same hearing body heard both cases in 2016 amid my strenuous objections. One of those figures, Richard Wagner, is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

(13) 'I would be unsurprised if Alberta is not at some point added to this list (of forum shoppers).

(14) 'The day may have now arrived. Mr. Callow is a potential subject for court access restrictions in Alberta Courts.' For years now, I have always asked for court permission to proceed. See (23) and (31)That is what Thomas j. would deny me and why I call for his removal from the bench. His 'quick deed' should not be accepted by his superiors.

 

III Court Access Restrictions

(15) to (25) I have no argument with the many, many case studies which have been cherry-picked by Thomas j. to support his conclusion which, considering how he has botched basic details of the issue concerned, have little if no relevance.

(31) In the interim (up to April 19-2019), Mr. Callow is prohibited from filing any material on any Court file except for the submissions identified above, and Mr. Callow may not continue or institute further court proceedings in Alberta without the leave of the Alberta Court in question:... As already pointed out, I always ask for permission of the court to proceed.

 

ADDENDUM: One would not realize from the above account that a third judge from B.C. was included in this civil fraud charge.

 

     In summary, the Alberta court is panicking, and in so doing, is denying the proper course of justice which all Canadians should be able to expect in terms of unfettered access to the courts; Thomas j.'s comments notwithstanding in this case. Under the circumstances, it would appear that the Edmonton Registry was toying with me similar to an earlier experience under Premier Notley in 2016. One point Thomas j. makes is disturbing; namely, a 'suggestion' that a lawyer must represent me in court. For one hour??? I have come across similar stunts like this before where every effort is made to keep this matter from becoming part of the judicial record which now explains the legal collapse of Alberta's judiciary unless remediation is taken.

 

Yours, in disappointment,

 

Roger Callow Plaintiff. 1903 06964  April 05-2019

 

April 11, 2019

 

To: Government Accountability Project, Washington, D.C.

1612 K. St. NW Suite #1100

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 457-0034

 

From: Roger Callow aka The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance

employeescasecanada.ca

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

 

MESSAGE:

Reference: SNC affair shows little respect for whistleblowers O.C. Apr. 11 p.A8

                      Lack of  protection is the real issue, says Joanna Gualtieri

 

1) Gualtieri is wrong. The real issue is a failure to hold individuals breaking the law to account which, in the Employees Case includes several judges. (Over 50 judges in this case in an unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid in defiance of any number of statutes.)

2) I read the list of Canadian whistleblowers; many of the stories the media has 'noted in passing'. No mention is made of the grand-daddy of all whistleblower cases, the Employee's Case (Canada) dating from 1985 under the imposed BILL 35 (B.C.-1985) in which the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, refuses to recognize court oversight of a sole arbitration under this document creating a constitutional crisis. The court had quashed the arbitration in 1986 ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor. I was left in limbo which has lasted 35 years. This story is well known across Canada in legal and professional teacher circles plus media as cases have been lodged in 6 out of 10 provinces as I was illicitly expelled from B.C. in this unresolved matter. There is a Canadian media boycott on the story.

3) I don't need what appears to be yet another wasted sob story promulgated by whistleblower organizations about 'protection'. What I need is an international pulitzer prize winning magazine article on the biggest whistleblower story of all time. If you can do that, please send me the article reference.

 

Yours truly, 

 

Roger Callow aka 'Outlaw'

 

April 16-2019

 

cc  Premier Kenney / PMO

encl. 2 letters dated April 05-2019  3 pages total

 

COMPLAINT re QUEEN'S BENCH (EDMONTON) JUDGE D.R.G. THOMAS

for usurping the judicial process

 

TO: Judicial Council of Alberta    FROM: Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff

6th Floor Courts N                                       1285 Cahill Dr. #2001

1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.                     Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

Edmonton, AB  T5J 0R2                             

t.780-427-6330  (sent by mail)                       

 

To whom it may concern;

1) I am presuming that the original appointment of D.R.G. Thomas j was provincial and not federal as the proper court for oversight in the latter event is the Canadian Council of Judges. Please advise if this is the case.

2) I have kept both Alberta premiers cognizant of unfolding events related to 1903 06964 (Queen's Bench Edmonton) as well as the PMO ATTN: D. Lavetti A.G. There has been no response on any level.

3) My concern here is the connection that the Queen's Bench in Edmonton appears to have in these reviews which parallels the case of a Chief Justice in Vancouver where such appeals would end up in his lap. It was the failure of B.C. A.G.  D.Edy to acknowledge let alone investigate Hinckson cj which is the sole reason for including this judge's name in a civil fraud charge in Alberta. Of course any public mention of that aspect would be most alarming in the pursuit of justice in Alberta hence I was not surprised - although disappointed - to see an illicit stunt by such as Thomas j. whom, one and at the same time, quotes extensively from case law but would deny me a similar opportunity to respond in an open court. In brief, the same Decision could be delivered but only with the sanction of a court hearing (one hour by teleconferencing). Thomas j. avoided that alternative and in the process brought the course of justice into disrepute. I have called for his suspension accordingly until this matter is sorted out.

 

Yours truly, (signed) Roger Callow  Plaintiff   employeescasecanada.ca

 

April 18-2019

 

TO: Premier Jason Kenney and outgoing Premier Rachel Notley by fax: 3 pages

encl. 2 pages e-mail from Holly Bedford paralegal for Harris & Co. Vancouver, B.C.

A) PMO

B) Edmonton Queen's Bench Court

 

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff No. 1903 06964 Edmonton Registry (Harris Co. FID4948)

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

MESSAGE:

1) Received on the above e-mail number were the two pages enclosed from Holly Bedford, a Harris & Co.(Vancouver) Paralegal on April 17-2019. The mammoth 'Part I' is not included.

2) Of all the cockaminy stunts pulled in this legal caper; this one has to take the cake. I'm flabbergasted!  Kenney and Notley should be as well.

3) Which authority is Bedford quoting to act in this legal matter? The Defendant Employer never filed a Defense to the above and the illicit  intervention by Thomas j. in this case has led to a request by this plaintiff (see earlier correspondence to Kenney & Notley) to remove him from the bench. I notice both Thomas j. (deadline Apr. 19-2019) and Bedford call for action after the AB election in which Kenney assumes office after April 30-2019.

4) I scanned the first part of the Affidavit considering the reams and reams of material e-mailed to me which appeared to limit itself to the first of McKinnon's judgments in 2014 with no mention of the second one in September and possibly a third as appears on the internet. As no oversight body (Canadian Council of Judges) would even acknowledge this malfeasance in 2014, I have had to include a section against judges in my fraud applications for my protection from such as the above groundless assertions. To date, I enumerate 6 judges including Thomas j. of the over 50 judges whom have dealt with this unresolved labour case for further action.

5) Simply put, why has Harris & Co. decided to hide behind the skirt-tails of a paralegal no doubt ordered to risk her reputation? One answer is that any lawyer signing this document stands a very good risk of losing his license.

6) Whether or not the three Letters dated April 17-2019, are buried in the omnibus e-mail I do not know nor do I plan wading through this extensive waste of time. Hopefully, Part 2 is not mailed as the court should place an immediate embargo on any future e-mails to me from Bedford.

7) Both Kenney and Notley should address this matter of judicial malfeasance. As for the PMO, I have lost all faith in that body. Addressing the Prime Minister/Governor General directly is the default direction of the employeescasecanada.ca.

 

Yours truly

 

Roger Callow

 

April 21-2019

I am now in possession of the letter sent by Bedford reinforcing Thomas j. request for forcing this plaintiff to have only legal representation in court. That letter is co-signed by Vancouver's Geoff Litherland of Harris & Co. making him culpable for the full $20 million in settlement. Both Thomas j. & Litherland should expect an action filed against them in another venue for interfering with the course of justice if the two AB premiers do not resolve this fiasco by April 30; the turn-over date of the Premiership. The GG is asked to consult in this matter with the Prime Minister directly as assigning paralegals full court recognition changes the whole scope of the legal fraternity in Canada.  (signed) Roger Callow

 

April 18-2019

TO: Premier Jason Kenney and outgoing Premier Rachel Notley by fax: 3 pages

encl. 2 pages e-mail from Holly Bedford paralegal for Harris & Co. Vancouver, B.C.

A) PMO

B) Edmonton Queen's Bench Court

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff No. 1903 06964 Edmonton Registry (Harris Co. FID4948)

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

MESSAGE:

1) Received on the above e-mail number were the two pages enclosed from Holly Bedford, a Harris & Co.(Vancouver) Paralegal on April 17-2019. The mammoth 'Part I' is not included.

2) Of all the cockaminy stunts pulled in this legal caper; this one has to take the cake. I'm flabbergasted!  Kenney and Notley should be as well.

3) Which authority is Bedford quoting to act in this legal matter? The Defendant Employer never filed a Defense to the above and the illicit  intervention by Thomas j. in this case has led to a request by this plaintiff (see earlier correspondence to Kenney & Notley) to remove him from the bench. I notice both Thomas j. (deadline Apr. 19-2019) and Bedford call for action after the AB election in which Kenney assumes office after April 30-2019.

4) I scanned the first part of the Affidavit considering the reams and reams of material e-mailed to me which appeared to limit itself to the first of McKinnon's judgments in 2014 with no mention of the second one in September and possibly a third as appears on the internet. As no oversight body (Canadian Council of Judges) would even acknowledge this malfeasance in 2014, I have had to include a section against judges in my fraud applications for my protection from such as the above groundless assertions. To date, I enumerate 6 judges including Thomas j. of the over 50 judges whom have dealt with this unresolved labour case for further action.

5) Simply put, why has Harris & Co. decided to hide behind the skirt-tails of a paralegal no doubt ordered to risk her reputation? One answer is that any lawyer signing this document stands a very good risk of losing his license.

6) updated: I am now in possession of the letter dated April 17-2019 from Bedford to the court co-signed by Vancouver's Geoff Litherland of Harris and Company , the long time representative for the Employer. No mention is made of providing disclosure, the key request.

7) Both Kenney and Notley should address this matter of judicial malfeasance. As for the PMO, I have lost all faith in that body. Addressing the Prime Minister/Governor General directly is the default direction of the employeescasecanada.ca.

Yours truly

Roger Callow

 

ADDENDUM: The trial was to be limited to 5 minutes; either the court agrees to pursue disclosure or any other argument which should be provided with a written answer. No discussion of the criminality of the judges charged therein nor the constitutional question needs be discussed as that disposition can also be made in writing. Thomas j. has bitten off more than he can chew on this one. All Alberta will be watching the outcome by April 30-2019.

 

April 24-2019

 

TO: Premier Jason Kenney and outgoing Premier Rachel Notley by fax: 7 pages

encl. 2 pages from Lawyer Geoff Litherland dated April 17-2019 received April 24-2019

plus 5 pages of pertinent material from this plaintiff in response

A) PMO/GG

B) Edmonton Queen's Bench Court

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff No. 1903 06964 Edmonton Registry (Harris Co. FID4948)

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

MESSAGE:

1) This is the second letter Bedford referred to on April 17-2019; the first addressed to Mr. Callow  and signed by her (sent by e-mail) with a co-signature from Legal counsel Geoff Litherland to which I addressed a response to Notley-Kenney dated April 21-2019 (included here). The thrust of that response is not only to claim that she does not have legal standing in this Queen's Bench Court in part as no Defense was filed within the necessary time limit. She should not be heard; the co-signature of Litherland esq. notwithstanding on this account.

2) The second letter is addressed to the Registrar (Edmonton's Queen Bench) dated April 17-2019 signed only by Litherland esq. although he makes reference to Bedford's account which measures 4 inches high and consists of material from my web site and received by courier on April 24-2017. Who is expected to pay for this 'waste of time and money'? Bedford quoting an earlier Paralegal in an Affidavit in respect of this voluminous account is the height of stupidity but then, actions by Thomas j. invite just that kind of stupidity.

3) Page 2 asks that Mr. Callow be declared a vexatious litigant with the following restrictions which amounts to 'running a court within a court' which, it is submitted, Thomas j. invites:

1. representation by a lawyer as a pre-requisite of submitting a leave application;

response: I do that routinely in every case that I file; therefore no need for a lawyer

2. representation by a lawyer for filing any document

response: While the case goes in my own name in the past 35 years; I have access  to legal advice. Indeed, Ottawa lawyer Paul Conlin esq. has dealt directly with the Respondents in this case in the past. His written account of how the B.C. Labour Board was patently unreasonable in refusing me a Section 12 hearing appears on my web site.

3. payment of outstanding court costs as a precondition to future litigation steps.

response: I include two pages dated December 10-2018 in which the letter to the WV School Trustees notes that in Point 6, I have never received an invoice from Harris & Co. or their affiliates in QC and ON. Whom paid these bills? Lawyers do not work for nothing. This lie is why I include the names of errant judges in my fraud charges as protection against such outright lies.

4. requiring payment into court of security for costs, and

response: I was forced to pay two 'Sureties' in the past and still did not receive justice in terms of disclosure which is the key to this wide-spread conspiracy supported by JUSTICE CANADA in terms of over 50 judges

5. personal appearance of the abusive litigant in court proceedings.

response: In latter years, telephone conferencing of one hour has served our purposes admirably. Litherland esq. is just 'running up the bill' for no realizable gain. Labeling this plaintiff as 'abusive' is a prerogative of the court but as it is submitted here, this short response paints a very different picture of this rogue legal outfit.

 

His closing remark that this Plaintiff is re-litigating matters that were long ago decided (which matters? I still do not have compensation after 35 years which is mine whether under the conditions of the imposed BILL 35, the collective bargaining rules, or some other statute relating to labour compensation. That now includes pension rights for12 years.)

...and which the courts have no jurisdiction to decide... The Employer launched a case in ON in 2014 where I was the Defendant in which they claimed that the courts (which quashed the arbitration in 1986 ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show the all important causal factor) are not legally competent to review imposed legislation. The point here is that BILL 35 states that it was 'in addition to' the School Act and did not displace any provisions therein. MacKenzie j. ignored that argument merely dismissing the case on the grounds that this Defendant was frivolous and vexatious. In brief, the Employer is imputing terms subsequently which do not exist in this piece of imposed legislation but cannot be challenged due to judicial cupidity. That is why this case is a keynote in any action in Canada where imposed legislation is the order of the day such as the imposed Carbon Tax.

 

To be sure, if the media did not have a national boycott on a legal story which makes LAVSCAM look like a Sunday School Picnic, the courts would have been stopped long ago in their culpability with this issue.

 

Now, as matters stand, citizens of Alberta (and elsewhere) cannot look with any assurance to the courts for redress of grievances. Court Decisions have become a 'scrap of paper'.

To be charitable, it would seem that Thomas j. and Litherland esq. make for ideal bedfellows

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow  Plaintiff No. 1903 06964 (as assigned by Thomas j. and not the Registry)

encl. see introduction

 

APRIL 25-2019

 

Roger Callow <thecallows@gmail.com>

Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:09 AM

To: Mark Bonokoski <markbonokoski@gmail.com>

MESSAGE:

1) PLACARDCHICKEN LITTLE SAYS: ECONOMIC SKY HAS FALLEN INTO WORLD DEPRESSION

 

2) No matter what kind of economic system exists in the world; it is unsustainable. For example, the short sighted Fraser Institute is fond of quoting the fact that while student enrollment has remained flat for over a decade in ON, costs of operation have doubled with teachers' salary accounting for 80% of that cost. Teachers, for their part, would gladly go back to their salary of a decade ago if the costs were the same. The 2-3% salary increase does not cover the cost of living increase which is about double the salary increase. And don't ask what recent fuel increased costs of 30% is doing to that formula. New car sales are flat with their 'negative equity'. What's going to happen when financiers have to seize these cars for non-payment? Keep in touch with my website for more on this topic and others. employeescasecanada.ca 2019 RECENT 5  P.S. SEE Edmonton Court 'whackadoodle' reflecting this sentiment: P. BEHIND EVERY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS A MORAL COLLAPSE (Justice Canada imploded over the Employee's Case) Two of my original Placards from 2004: a) STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE  b) A PARADOX: THE LAW IS BROKEN YET PLENTY FIXED AS IT IS

 

3) The media is committed to voting knowing full well of the reality of this PLACARDELECTIONS: BOZOS IN AND BOZOS OUT OR BOZOS OUT AND BOZOS IN. It is a dying mantra with them; dying because one of the first institutions to go in a World Depression is the fiscally challenged media as unemployed workers will cut their newspaper subscriptions as a first priority. In that regard, you should aim to get employment with a Tory gov't. if they win next fall. The only thing fiscally minded gov'ts. do is slow the economic juggernaut down until the profligates get back in power.

 

4) Forget the financial figures showing  success as they are all contingent on each other. The only two to watch are the Canadian dollar and the prime rate.

 

5) PLACARD: JUSTIN / DID NOT INHERIT HIS FATHER'S BRAIN

As one with qualifications and experience in drama and geography, I would have to speak with him to evaluate his prowess in those areas. What he is, is an elitist in support of the top 1% rich whom are ripping North America off. They specialize in 'service fees' (e.g. SNC Lavelin). Bombardier, a basket case kept afloat by pensioner funds which take all the risk has enriched the family owners. The descendant of the Disney family recently called out the CEO for assigning himself a grandiose bonus which could have gone a long way in easing the medical costs of his lowest paid employees. On the positive side, I have great respect for Trudeau's fantastic physical condition. It also appears that he is a good family man.

 

6) Columnist Liz Brown (someone I admire...oh, all right, I will throw you into the same bag) writes how the millennials will not be as well off as their 'bankers', mom and pop. On the other end, mom and pop are told that their paid for home plus pension is now insufficient to cover retirement. Pension funds will have to pull out their investment money to pay for increased pension numbers in future=market dislocation 

 

7) Much more could be said which I will on my web but if you got this far; I figure that is enough for one day.

 

Outlaw

April 26-2019

 

TO: Premier Moe  via fax: SK: 306-787-0885  cc Saskatoon Court:f. 306-975-4818  2 Pages

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

              1285 Cahill Drive E #2001  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7  f. 613-521-1739

               e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Have you fired Saskatoon Queen's Bench Registrar Glen Metevier for 'bringing the cause of justice into disrepute' despite his fake apology in a fraud charge which I have laid in the above case? If not, it would appear that I am not the only one being treated as a fool. How do you expect success in the imposed Carbon Tax when the SK Justice System is infiltrated by the 'fifth column' particularly as you failed to assign a Special Judge to deal with the above case including the all-important role of imposed legislation? (imposed BILL 35 - B.C. 1985 reference)

2) The significance of the above constitutional question is that once a government is successful with imposed legislation; it opens the door to unfettered challenges. For example BILL 35 'was in addition to' as asserted in the BILL to the School's Act and did not displace any provisions thereto. The Employer has taken that to mean that no court oversight is permitted of imposed legislation to which over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada) have given 'back door support' to that major shift in order to protect individual judges in a 'cover-up of a cover-up' in which individual judges now find themselves included in the fraud charges due to the failure of any oversight body to even acknowledge very serious charges of judicial malfeasance. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal connection. (He had converted 16 new teacher hires to read 16 teacher lay-offs)

3) The above SK hearing by telephone conferencing was a mishmash which has been postponed to May 23 by Justice Konkin although the outcome is a foregone conclusion if you do not act now to re-assign a Special Judge to deal with all three provisions a) disclosure b) alleged judicial malfeasance of specific judges c) the constitutional question (of vital importance vis a vis the imposed Carbon Tax). The latter two depend on disclosure as a pre-condition to the other two. If the disclosure reveals fraudulent action; then everything emanating from that action is 'null and void' and I depart SK. That defined disclosure relates to the minute notes of the West Vancouver School Trustees in June of 1985 in which the lay-off for economic reasons of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed. Both the Employer and Union (which purloined my copy returned by Justice Southin 'because she did not use them' were denied to me. At least as a Union client I have a right to that information according to my then legal counsel in 1999, Ottawa's Paul Conlin).

4) The point here is that the Union is not represented although named as a Defendant in the above SK case with the circumstances of disclosure being different from that of the Employer. By rights, an ethical judge would order that record from both entities on pain of paying a $500 fine per day for each day of failure for a period of 30 days after which the RCMP would be sent in. That would end my contact with SK courts; which is no great loss considering earlier malfeasance in 2016 with Regina courts which the Supreme Court of Canada rejected to hear in an Appeal by me.

5) As I wrote you earlier 'Saskatooney Law' consisted of a clerk deciding that no hearing date would be assigned unless the Defendant made an appearance forever changing the law in Canada as what Defense lawyer would ever file under those circumstances? It appears that she got her wish no doubt due to an 'extracurricular' contact with legal Counsel for the Employer, Vancouver's Harris & Co. whom sprung into court with his 4 inch deep 'billable time nonsense' factum which I had never seen nor been notified of its existence. Considering that no Defense had been filed within the time limits, I requested Justice Konkin to refuse them a presence in court. Normally, my protests are ignored on this level and I am not given a chance to provide a rebuttal to major inconsistencies. Even Konkin j. recognized this point as he has provided me with a time period to respond to this SK factum which he directed Harris & Co. to courier to me. The new re-convened date is May 23-2019. If Premier Moe has any sense, and I do not credit him to date for such, he will assign a different Special Judge overseeing all three conditions of my action. Of course, I do not expect any analysis of the malfeasance of the judges as I only include their names as a means of blocking the quoting of the judicial record of such as ON Justice Colin McKinnon (see web pre 2015) whom is quoted widely in these events. My response is to ask 'Would the real McKinnon j. please stand up?' as there exists three versions of his 2014 Decision which do not recognize the existence of each other. In brief, the Canadian Justice System is rotten to the core. Earlier in 2016, the Regina Appeal Court held a private voir dire with Harris & Co. in which they would not speak in court to answer charges of malfeasance made by me. Conspiracy? You bet. Saskatoon appears to be aping Regina courts.

6) The mishmash referred to in the April 25 'Saskatooney' hearing relates to the surprise attendance of Harris & Co. claiming that the hearing in SK is identical to that of AB in which Premier Kenney and former Premier Notley have until April 30 to act (turn-over period). It is not. B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (see web 2018 HINCKSONcj Fraud) is mentioned in AB but not in SK. ON Justice McKenzie is named in SK but not in AB. Further, Harris & Co. sought to hide behind the coat-tails of their paralegal giving her a status in AB court thus altering the entire lawyer-paralegal relationship in Canada. Earlier, I threatened the partners of Harris & Co. with legal action holding them accountable for the entire $20 million settlement which no doubt explains their absence from filing defenses until now with lawyer Geoff Litherland  appearing in Saskatoon court for the Employer. That fraud charge spanning many courts will now convene in another venue, the outcome of the Saskatoon hearing being of no account.

8) No copy of this case has been sent to the media since the end of 2018 due to their boycott of this national story which makes LAVSCAM and the Vice Admiral Mark Norman fiasco invoked by both the Tories and Liberals look like Sunday School picnics in the microcosm to the macrocosm of the Employee's Case explaining why voters should vote 'with their feet' in the October election as Scheer remains silent on the Employee's Case as does the NDP and Maxine Bernier's Party (the judge should have thrown the  Norman case out some time ago).

7) President Trump has been requested to invoke the Magnitsky Act (cannot be assigned internally as per Canadian law leaving only other signatories to apply this Act). Copies are now being sent to the Governor General to invoke a general trusteeship over Justice Canada until this matter has been resolved. President Trump, are you listening? Further the myopic anti-employee media are currently being left stewing in their own juices as the government clamps down on any publicity of multi-billion dollar tax-funded arms deals by civil servants which presumably includes allied private contractors as well (in the U.S. too?). Anarchy?... thourt name is Canadian Democracy.

9) So, which is it, Premier Moe, are you going to fire 'Saskatooney' Registrar, Glen Metevier and re-assign this case to a new Special Judge to include the constitutional question? A response is requested. (At least Premier Ford personally responds.) Also, will you go from being Canada's most popular Premier to outdoing Canada's least popular Premier, NS Premier McNeil? (He scrapped School Boards as one protection against whackadoodle School Boards like West Vancouver). At any rate, you may ask Justin how popularity works.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow  plaintiff QBG 52-2019 Saskatoon Registry

 

April 29-2019

 

TO: Her Majesty the Queen

Buckingham Palace

London, SW1A 1AA

Sent c/o the Governor General of Canada, Hon. Julie Payette

 

FROM: Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff in most Canadian provinces

web: employeescasecanada.ca  SEE APRIL-2019 the above date

 

Dear Madam,

1) Technically, Canada has not sanctioned the new form for the Governor General of Canada as outlined by the British Monarchy, but no matter as the issue I write you on is a personal one as it relates to the possible appointment of Prince Harry to be Governor General of Canada.

2) Don't do it. Currently the incumbent GG, Julie Payette, will go to her deathbed condemned by remaining silent on the Employee's Case which has destroyed the efficacy of the Canadian Justice System if she does not publicize this case. The 'individual' currently has no legitimate place to turn for legal recourse in Canada where this case has been heard amid a media boycott on this national story.

3) I have great admiration for Prince Harry, an accomplished soldier whom has received world recognition for his part in creating the Invictus Games and would not like to see his personal reputation besmirched by being hoisted on the perfidy and cowardice of Justice Canada which would indeed happen if he succeeds Payette. The position is meant to be a titular one reflecting the 'respected' parts of government. A wise monarchy would not place Prince Harry's sterling reputation in jeopardy in that regard.

4) Now on the other hand, if you could resurrect the soul of a Winston Churchill, Canada could well indeed do with such a personage.

 

'I have the honour to be' The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice  System due to systemic  judicial malfeasance. (aka Roger Callow)