JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

JUNE-2019

 

JUNE 01-2019

THREE NEWSLETTERS

A)

PEI TEACHERS - June 01-2019

 

BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK (34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)

...I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court   Callow v West Vancouver Teacherís Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)
Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in  Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368 z(CanLII) be heard together.  The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)
I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together  and the main issue will be the court making vexatious litigant order (sic) on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general.

... have attached the decisions to this email in an attachment, Bring an appeal and ask for leave and ask if you can have you (sic) appeal heard together.SEE INTERNET FOR MY RESPONSE

 

1) New Brunswick, due to its challenge to the imposed Carbon Tax is about to undergo a similar 'whang, bang, thank-you ma'am, performance paralleling other provinces including PEI. In brief, you stand little chance of success if you follow the routine of SK which ignored my legal advice and instead brought a knife to a gun fight. No matter which way their appeal goes, they are tarnished with the lower court conviction in perpetuity. (N.B. has been chosen as this is the first foray by this case into this province raising the question as to which interests control your courts...the Premier or the grey eminence?)

2) While it is an uphill battle, giving this plaintiff Special Status in order to function on 3 levels is required in order to make a constitutional challenge. That was Premier King's role after the abject failure of the Green Party. It would seem now that PEI must go it on their own and SK shows the folly of that course:

- o -

5) I was dumbfounded to find Harris & Co. present on an ad hoc presentation before Konkin j. on April 25 never believing that Konkin j. would ask him to forward his 500 word submission to me for a rebuttal. The material was borrowed from another court and in no way referenced the Saskatoon Court. Konkin j. lied to me on that direct question.

7) The maxim that 'It is a fool whom has himself as a legal client' applies equally to legal firms.

The point here, Harris & Co. is highly unlikely to get any legal firm to represent them in the new forum (New Brunswick). Of course, the original question of disclosure is paramount in a case where I call on the court to act on a one-time without prejudice non-negotiable $20 million dollars to cover all costs from Harris for the three parties which I claim are equally responsible; the Employer, the Union, and the Courts of law. That is, unless Harris & Co. hand over the well-defined disclosure either to me privately or as ordered by the court.

 

POST IN STAFFROOM -e-mail colleagues

 

B)

SK LEGAL INTERESTS - June 01-2019

 

BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK (34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)

...I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court   Callow v West Vancouver Teacherís Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)
Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in  Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368 z(CanLII) be heard together.  The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)
I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together  and the main issue will be the court making vexatious litigant order (sic) on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the att. gen .

... have attached the decisions to this email in an attachment, Bring an appeal and ask for leave and ask if you can have you (sic) appeal heard together.SEE INTERNET FOR MY RESPONSE

 

May 23-2019 (employeescasecanada.ca )

TO: Premier Moevia fax: SK: 306-787-0885

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

††††††††††† 1285 Cahill Drive E #2001Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7t./f. 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

2) The above hearing before Justice Sherman is a 'switch & bait' routine which I encountered in QC in 2016 (SEE web site). In that case, Chief Justice Goulet wrote the Decision for the hearing judge whom was not even referenced in his Decision. That's fraud but a fraud which went all the way to the SCofC (26883-2016) without being heard. Technically I am still awaiting a Decision from that lower court QC judge.

3) The entire Saskatoon Court under the aegis of Konkin j. was involved in a conspiracy which has been reported to the oversight body where I called for the dismissal of Registrar Glen Metivier, his apology notwithstanding. As a result of that hearing on April 25, I challenged Konkin j's credibility directly, when in answer to the question, he claimed that material filed by an ad hoc appearance of Harris & Co. (Geoff Litherland) whom did not file any other forms with respect to an appearance, was addressed to the SK court when in fact they had not been having been used in another venue.

4)... He( Sherman; Konkin's stand-in)did not read my entire factum in that regard. But he did see fit to quote an Alberta case of which he researched; the filed #1903 06964 Thomas j. Decisions not realizing -although being completely disinterested- in the fact that I had been rejected from Edmonton Queen's Bench for incomplete forms. Thomas j. gratuitously assigned the above file number....

 

POST IN STAFFROOM

 

C)

NEW BRUNSWICK TEACHERS - June 01-2019

 

BY: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK

(34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

 

1) New Brunswick, due to its challenge to the imposed Carbon Tax is about to undergo a similar 'whang, bang, thank-you ma'am, performance paralleling other provinces. In brief, you stand little chance of success if you follow the routine of SK which ignored my legal advice and instead brought a knife to a gun fight. No matter which way their appeal goes, they are tarnished with the lower court conviction in perpetuity. (N.B. has been chosen as this is the first foray by this case into this province raising the question as to which interests control your courts...the Premier or the grey eminence?)

 

2) While it is an uphill battle, giving this plaintiff Special Status in order to function on 3 levels is required in order to make a constitutional challenge. That is Premier Higgs' role.

a) disclosure which underlies all else

b) a list of judges from other provinces accused of malfeasance but not held to account by the oversight bodies leaving their bastardized judgments on file, is included. SEE web: JUNE 01 2019 for how that stunt worked out in Saskatoon recently. The court is not asked to evaluate these claims stretching across Canada; rather, a short commentary is required on the failure of the oversight bodies to even acknowledge let alone deal with some very serious judicial malfeasance. SEE web JUNE 2019 GOVERNOR GENERAL PAYETTE for that compendium.

c) the constitutional question (raised unsuccessfully on that level in Nova Scotia). One consequence was the eradication of School Boards in Nova Scotia exposing teachers to capricious government actions.

 

3) Premier Higgs has been primed on this case which varies from others in that the B.C. Legal firm of Harris & Co. is to be held responsible in a civil fraud charge for the full $20 million cost of settlement if they do not produce disclosure. The importance here is to demonstrate that Justice Canada has become a force unto itself making millions out of court Appeals at the cost of provinces. Higgs has to approve Special Counsel otherwise this case is limited to disclosure.

 

4) Professional Teachers across Canada have chosen to sit on their duffs and are now paying the price along with their school boards. Don't follow suit. Do become active by proselytizing this issue on social media throughout New Brunswick.

 

You personally can make a difference

 

POST IN STAFFROOM - e-mail colleagues

- o -

WELCOME TO CANADA, MARK CARNEY ??!? (June 01-2019)

... same advice as to Prince Harry; don't step into a hornet's nest....

TOPIC: IMPOSED CARBON TAX & the employeescasecanada.cabyPlaintiff Roger Callow

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Judicial and Government System due to systemic judicial malfeasance for which there is no remedy which, in turn, infects every judicial decision in Canada today and in the future. (SEE Saskatooney story below)

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

1) Whyyou, you... stole the job of P.M. right from under the nose of such as Chrystia Freeland!.... ask Brutus how that one turns out.

2) To be sure, you will be stepping on toes of those whom feel they have earned the right to lead the Liberal Party. But that is not the only dagger pointed at your back. I will try to keep the story as brief as possible.

3) Let's start with a little humour. Gorbachev was reputed to have said that U.S. President Reagan had 100 guards with one of them being an assassin, and he did not know which one. Similarly, Gorbachev had 100 advisors and one of them was an economist and he did not know which one! Now that's a chuckle which should go straight down your economist gullet!

4) Still in the Soviet Union: Recently, a serial killer of 100 people was slow in being apprehended because of the zeitgeist that serial murders were limited to western democracies.

5) Still hanging in with the zeitgeists are you? A Canadian zeitgeist is that we are a country of 'law and order'; a feature which distinguishes us from the Third World. The Employees Case has shown otherwise.

6) Now for some mixed analogies...we fear those genomes which leap the animal/human divide; for example the common cold from horses and the flu from pigs. In Canadian law a similar divide exists between civil and criminal law; the latter being under the firm control of the authorities.

7) Civil law is a personal matter between two litigants for which there is a monetary solution.

8) The essence of the Employee's Case is that Justice Canada fell on their own sword in order to keep this matter from being declared criminal and have denied the all important disclosure (over 50 judges in 34 years) to that end which most assuredly would make this matter criminal. As such all action from the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985, which has not been tested in law (although the arbitration was quashed in 1986) would be 'null and void'...and that would never do....

9) SEE web: 2019 JUNE GOVERNOR GENERAL PAYETTE for a compendium of that Canada-wide judicial conspiracy in which she is personally charged with getting court dates set in Victoria, B.C. and Ontario where court clerks have apparently usurped the system. The alternative for her is to resign stating this reason for her resignation.

10) Saskatooney Law QBG 52 of 2019 illustrates how this case affects every judicial decision in Canada now and in the future. SEE CORRESPONDENCE attached to this letter.

11) So, Mr. Carney, reject this James Bond challenge,don't even bother to unpack.

 

Yours truly(Roger Callow aka 'Outlaw')

 

CORRESPONDENCE:

May 23-2019 (employeescasecanada.ca )

 

TO: Premier Moevia fax: SK: 306-787-08852 Pages

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

††††††††††† 1285 Cahill Drive E #2001Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7t./f. 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Confirmation of a Saskatoon hearing in the above case on May 23-2019 is made between 1:30 and 1:45 before a Justice Sherman with Harris & Co.'s Bruce Laughton for the Employer being present. There was no representation from the B.C. Teachers Union. There is to be only an oral Decision from the presiding justice although I asked for a written one.

2) The above hearing before Justice Sherman is a 'switch & bait' routine which I encountered in QC in 2016 (SEE web site). In that case, Chief Justice Goulet wrote the Decision for the hearing judge whom was not even referenced in his Decision. That's fraud but a fraud which went all the way to the SCofC (26883-2016) without being heard. Technically I am still awaiting a Decision from that lower court QC judge.

3) The entire Saskatoon Court under the aegis of Konkin j. was involved in a conspiracy which has been reported to the oversight body where I called for the dismissal of Registrar Glen Metivier, his apology notwithstanding. As a result of that hearing on April 25, I challenged Konkin j's credibility directly, when in answer to the question, he claimed that material filed by an ad hoc appearance of Harris & Co. (Geoff Litherland) whom did not file any other forms with respect to an appearance, was addressed to the SK court when in fact they had not been having been used in another venue. Was Laughton double billing? At any rate, Konkin ordered that material to be forwarded to me for comment with a re-hearing scheduled for today, May 23-2019. Only he was qualified to deal with this hearing which he apparently ducked.

4) The method of diminishingthe Employee's Case is to set a priority which was indeed the approach used by Justice Sherman whom sat in for Konkin j. without waiting for the outcome of the SK oversight committee results. The priority related to posing one question...how is the jurisdiction of SK involved? an important question which requires a lengthy answer detailed in my factum. Such explanations have been sufficient to get a hearing with written results in all other provinces including SK in 2016. Not so Justice Sherman who limited his answer to a narrow definition in which he displayed a woeful ignorance of this case. He did not read my entire factum in that regard. But he did see fit to quote an Alberta case of which he researched; the filed #1903 06964 Thomas j. Decisions not realizing -although being completely disinterested- in the fact that I had been rejected from Edmonton Queen's Bench for incomplete forms. Thomas j. gratuitously assigned the above file number and proceeded to adjudge the case without any court hearing or input from me. Nor did he call for the basic disclosure which has plagued this case for 34 years. Thomas j. is another one of my subjects referred to oversight bodies. It is of interest to note that Hicks Morley et al for theEmployer launched a case in 2014 (MacKenzie j.'3' Decisions not referencing each other- 'Will the real MacKenzie j. please stand up?') in which jurisdiction was not called into question. The non-presence of the Union with a separate interpretation of disclosure was of no interest either to Sherman j. In brief, their non-attendance meant that my assertions must stand 'as fact'. Indeed, Litherland had not presented an Appearance notice raising the question as to whom from the court contacted him in that regard. Again, Sherman j. interjection meant this question went unanswered.

5) With regards to costs, Laughton asked for $800 for the 'duplicate 500 word material' from another province which he was granted. When he made reference to earlier proceedings in SK in 2016 before McGaw j. and costs not being paid, I challenged him to tell us whom has been paying the court costs in QC (Lavery de Billy,) ON (Hicks, Morley) and Harris & Co. in NS when I have never received an invoice for these costs. The West Vancouver School Trustees would not answer that question from me nor would the North Shore News tabloid investigate. All this was related to Sherman j. whom was not interested in such matters. Sherman j intervened before Litherland could respond as he considered this information as not being pertinent.

6) Considering Sherman's approach of choosing only the jurisdiction argument to the exclusion of all else, I requested his recusal which he rejected. In brief, I accused this court of cover-up using the usual approach of cherry-picking one item to the exclusion of all others to reduce this matter to the usual frivolous & vexatious litigant charge. That this matter is a question of (civil) fraud in an unresolved B.C. labour matter where no compensation has been paid was of no concern to Sherman j. 'looking through the big end of the telescope'. As such I accused this court of cover-up.

7) It is of interest that Harris & Co. turn up in this court considering that they do not recognize court oversight for imposed legislation. Presumably if the court fined them the full $20 million as default if they did not produce disclosure; then Harris & Co. would refuse to pay on these grounds. And yet they are only too willing to put in a bill of costs which they expect to be reinforced. That's not law; it's politics and that is what the court of Sherman j. was all about.

 

TO: PREMIER MOE

8) The above action in no way affects the charge that I have laid against Konkin et al with the oversight bodies and your government should proceed accordingly.

9) I believe the request that I made earlier should be effected which can only be done by you; namely, appoint someone with a constitutional background which Sherman confessed that he didn't have, and appoint Special Counsel to deal with this matter of imposed legislation as I submit your chances of success in a multi-million dollar Appeal to the Carbon Tax which you recently lost, will repeat itself unless the proper argument is presented. The matter would be conducted entirely in writing so that your 'trusted' legal interests may file intervener status although I control the case.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow Plaintiff

 

 

Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)

...I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court   Callow v West Vancouver Teacherís Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)

Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in  Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368 z(CanLII) be heard together.  The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)

I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together  and the main issue will be the court making vexatious litigant order (sic) on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general

 

... have attached the decisions to this email in an attachment, Bring an appeal and ask for leave and ask if you can have you (sic) appeal heard together.

 

Response: .... 4) I have had 'Appeal Courts' up the yimyam for 34 years as my web site shows. They are all in the hands of Justice Canada, a corrupt and corruptible body. That is the essence of my web site. I see no point to yet another Appeal depending instead to complaining to the oversight bodies (which never acknowledge judicial malfeasance). The point is that the court protects its rear end first e.g. Thomas j. with all other litigants coming a distant second. Good luck in your challenge, but as a betting man, I don't give it much chance.

5) I know a contractor whom has a similar challenge to the SCofC on a pro bono basis. He protects himself behind a numbered company shield so that if the case is lost, he may declare bankruptcy in order to avoid onerous legal costs from the other side. The litigant above should check with her lawyers on that point before setting forth in this dangerous escapade.

 

JUNE 02-2019which follows on the 23 page compendium to the Governor General 2019JUNE 01-2019

 

TOPIC: IMPOSED CARBON TAX & the employeescasecanada.ca by Plaintiff Roger Callow

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† t/f 613-521-1739e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

2 pages sent by faxes

TO:

A) Premier Dennis King PEI†††††††††††††††††† (fax) (902) 368-4416

B) Premier Brian PallisterMB †††††††††††††† (fax) (204) 949-1484

C) Premier Jason Kenney AB†††††††††††††††††† (fax) (403) 251-5453

D) Premier Blaine Higgs NB†††††††††††††††††††† (fax) (506) 453-7407

MESSAGE:

1) Admonishments to Premier Moe regarding the Carbon Tax by this writer went unheeded before a Premier whom would bring a knife to a gun fight.

2) My thesis is that elements within both the Liberal and Conservative Parties want to make the Carbon Tax the issue in the October election and have conscripted Justice Canada to that end sacrificing, in that process, provincial Premiers.

3) Simply put, the wrong argument is being provided in such as SK and, no doubt, ON of which decision is forthcoming shortly. Skip Sections #91 & #92; focus on the ultra vires nature of imposed legislation. Alice and Wonderland's 'First the Punishment and then the Crime' is the over-riding concept e.g. Parliament before court oversight. The 3-2 split was pre-ordained even before the judges entered the courtroom including the outcome.

4) The only extant case on imposed legislation in Canada is the 34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been provided for in the economic lay-off (read that 'whistleblowing') of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow in June of 1985 of which arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed by the court in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor. I was left in limbo. The Employer refuses to pay compensation which is mine whether it be under the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985), the collective bargaining process, or general terms of contract. While they lost the Appeal of this case as to jurisdiction of imposed legislation, their subsequent position is that they do not recognize oversight powers of the judiciary even though BILL 35 specifically stated that it was 'in addition to the School Act and did not supplant any provisions therein.' They used it for the wrong reason, sniffed Southin j.

5) Unless this case is heard prior to the Carbon Tax; there is little likelihood that the above provinces will be successful. Even then, it will be an uphill struggle. The last thing a Province should have is a 'conviction' on this level for it remains in perpetuity.

PREMIERS:

6) The best legal argument is to be found in MB material (see web) where I await a response from the court and Premier Pallister. I have not used MB courts formerly. MB did make an offer to the Federal government on the Carbon Tax which was ignored; a strong legal point but, as the Employee's Case and others have shown, strong points go nowhere when faced by such as retired Privy Council clerk, Michael Wernick.

7) The PEI Court was unique in that the challenge was to the Opposition Green Party as a harbinger to Green activity clear across Canada. They failed that challenge so it goes now to Premier King. The court is dragging its heels as though the previous Premier were still calling the shots in an earlier challenge solely to the Union to obtain their copy of disclosure; a 34 year continuousdemand.

8) Premier 'trudeau-like' Jason Kenney has been kept cognizant of court aberrations in which a Justice 'jumped the gun' by assigning his own file no. and judging this case without a trial. I recommend that Kenney assign that Edmonton file no. to a court in Calgary before Special Counsel to examine the constitutional question so vital to his dropping of the Carbon Tax.

9) PremierBlaine Higgs, similar to tiny PEI, can ill-afford a multi-million dollar Appeal. My 'Model-T version' does the same thing at a fraction of the cost. New Brunswick has never been used before by me and probably will be the focus of my $20 million action for fraud against Vancouver's Harris & Co.

10) As the case would be handled entirely in writing, intervener status by provincial legal counsel could be used keeping in mind that I control the case. The choice is there for the above Premiers to make. For the sake of the people in their respective provinces, I hope that they make the right one.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow Plaintiff

aka The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systemic government and judicial malfeasance in a national matter boycotted by the anti-individual media.

 

cc. Governor General Payette

 

JUNE 06-2019

JUNE 06-2019web: employeescasecanada.ca8 pages

 

TO: Her Excellency the Right Honourable Julie Payette / Rideau Hall / 1 Sussex Dr. Ott.K1A 0A1

(Sent by snail mail) by way of response to:

FROM: Roger Callow PlaintiffQGB 520f 2019 ('Saskatooney law')1285 Cahill Dr. #2001 Ott. K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

MESSAGE:

1) I have not heard back from you regarding the failure of court clerks in both B.C. and ON to assign court dates for filed cases. Why not?

2) Events in Saskatoon were post-dated from the 23 page indictment of Judicial perfidy stretching clear across Canada in the Employee's Case (web: 2019JUNEGOVERNOR GENERAL PAYETTE) so a 5 page indictment of those two court hearings appears here.

3) The above matter has culminated in a fraud charge against Harris & Co. of Vancouver, B.C. which is behind all these legal hearings. They do not recognize court oversight (which quashed the original arbitration under the imposed BILL 35 in 1986 leaving me in a 34 year limbo where no compensation has been paid.) They have willing allies in over 50 judges assigned this case as noted to you already. That legal case can be found on the web SITE: 2019 JUNE NEW BRUNSWICK

4) In addition to the above 5 page inclusion is an article by Ottawa Sun columnist,Lorne Gunter, June 05-2019 p.19 in which he details similar perfidy as it relates to a history of the Canadian Human Rights Commission from which I quote:

...The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was in favour of repealing Section 13. So was Canada's largest association of journalists. Commissioners were told several times by experts - including two of their their own adjudicators - that Section 13 violated the Charter, yet they refused to stop enforcing it. (my underlining) ...a good idea to put the human rights foxes back in charge of the free-speech hen house?

5) In AB Appeal Court, there appears to be another in-house cover-up of a massive fraud extending clear across Canada: That exposure of Justice Thomas & Justice Corbett (see p.3 of 5 pages) apparently is Canada wide. I asked two separate lawyers to research the references in that e-mail which I received. They declined no doubt left aghast at what they discovered. Your legal assistance is now required to reveal those other judicial names and check them against the list included here of over 50 judges previously assigned to the Employee's Case.

ACTION CALLED FOR:

A) That the Governor General invoke a trusteeship over Justice Canada until the above matters are resolved.

B) cc That the U.S. President expand the Magnitsky Act from Ontario to apply to all of Canada. Canada is the northern flank of U.S. Defense and yet tiny Holland has a fleet 5 times the size of Canada. Indeed, we buy used tanks from them, used planes from Australia and used submarines from Britain while our allies have the latest equipment. Depending on a U.N. Resolution by Canada to protect the Arctic is poor balm under these circumstances.

 

Roger CallowPlaintiffOttawa

 

 

JUNE 07-2019

NEW BRUNSWICK TEACHERS - June 07-2019

 

BY: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK

(34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

 

(from JUNE 01 Newsletter)

2) While it is an uphill battle, giving this plaintiff Special Status in order to function on 3 levels is required in order to make a constitutional challenge (re Carbon Tax)... Premier Higgs' role.

 

RECENT 5 web subheading: 2019 JUNE 02

C) Real reason that the courts keep fumbling the Employee's Case? What if I won and the Employer says, sorry, we have told the courts over and over that we do not recognize court oversight of imposed legislation. We're not paying. The N.B. case is different in that it is directed against Harris & Co...Premier Higgs has the biggest challenge of his career and for N.B. Will he sit it out similar to Premier King in PEI? Stay tuned. N.B. Teachers can ill-afford to take a backseat thinking that my summer vacation is mine to do as I please. Not so this year. The first casualty will be N.B. School Boards leaving teachers exposed (union powers stripped as well). It happened in N.S. in 2017 after my constitutional challenge there.

 

MESSAGE:

1) 'Mr. Callow was always willing to help those who were willing to help themselves' student testimonial. SEE AFTERMATH for complete letter.

2) I am not hearing from Premier Higgs...is there too much 'Irving' background in him? Nor am I hearing back from individuals reading this Newsletter. Anonymity is guaranteed as reflected by the judicial exposure of Thomas j. in AB in the last Newsletter... 'Sure, use the article but keep my name out of it'

3) At this time, I am planning to go it alone requesting disclosure unless there is a groundswell of support from NB denizens.

4) Keep in mind that SK had a winning argument but was doomed to lose as the court makes its money with Appeals. The Feds (both Tories & Liberals) win by running a gov't. by fiat. The Liberals currently want the 20% fee attached to finance their gov't. The Premiers and the provinces are being sacrificed on the altar of this devious scheme.

5) It may very well be that even with my assistance, the Provinces will lose the constitutional battle. The point is, will they go down fighting as best they can or will they just hand the Feds a fait accompli? The choice is yours N.B. Act now, there is no later.

 

POST IN STAFFROOM - e-mail colleagues

 

JUNE 10-2019

WORLD DEPRESSION beginning here in Ontario

1) We hear about how ON has the largest sub-debt of any country in the world with a Premier whose notion of pre-emptive budgeting defies description economically.

2) It is more than that as to why ON is already in deep trouble. For example, much is made of the fact that 50% of the population cannot go without a paycheck and owe $1.78 for each dollar they earn. Consumer buying is a mainstay of our current economic output and is flailing fast. Australia has had nothing but growth since 1990 and yet has a 2-1 factor in financing; i.e. for every dollar earned, they owe two dollars. They were vulnerable to a Chinese take-over much like Sri Lanka which lost its major port. (The West is fighting back by building a second port to which all traffic will be consigned making a white elephant of China's ownership.)

3) The other end of the equation-business dealings are less obtrusive in this looming disaster. For example, Ottawa - and I am sure many centres - are awash in unsold automobiles with lot after lot filled with them. If we didn't make another automobile for one year, that would take the pressure off this industry. Creating 'negative equity' and 8 year contracts bought the auto dealers time but that has come to an end. Perhaps shifting to electric cars might give them some longevity (but don't buy one if you live in an apartment complex with shared electricity billing). Financially, those cars are a loss to the financier until they are sold. That paper loss is owned by loans from the bank where the debt is registered as an asset. What happens when there is massive default of these car loans which can start a ripple effect through the economy? Nothing is safe but liquidity. 'Paper' billionaires and millionaires go broke overnight. All the figures on which economists depend is just so much 'smoke'.

4) For those whom prattle about our grand-children carrying our debt...forget it...if Donald Trump can tell Britain with BREXIT to forego paying a $50 billion exit fee, think what your grand-children will tell you...no way, oldsters, you pay your debt and don't expect us to pay it...besides, we have been brought up on a pollyanna lifestyle which doesn't recognize debt as attested to by our multitudinous credit cards so stuff it before we stuff you out of your nursing-home and onto the street just like some of our veterans if you pester us much longer...chew on that one!

5) In short, all economic systems fail over time although socialistic ones tend to go sooner...Venezuela, here we all come. Since the turn of the millennium, young people have been falling behind their parents standard of living with the parents beginning to realize that an owned home and pension will not cover an extended life span. It's a rude awakening. Even worse, is to realize some gov't. (QC with Bombardier) has made some risky investments with pension money with the pension holder taking the risk. Don't even ask about those pensions invested abroad such as China.

6) Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? I don't see it...that's about as much as you get from me....

 

 

JUNE 13-2019

NEW BRUNSWICK/PEI/MB TEACHERS - June 13-2019

NEW BRUNSWICK TEACHERS - June 07-2019

BY: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK

(34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

 

(from JUNE 01 Newsletter)

2) While it is an uphill battle, giving this plaintiff Special Status in order to function on 3 levels is required in order to make a constitutional challenge (re Carbon Tax)... Premier Higgs' role.

RECENT 5 web subheading: 2019 JUNE 02

C) Real reason that the courts keep fumbling the Employee's Case? What if I won and the Employer says, sorry, we have told the courts over and over that we do not recognize court oversight of imposed legislation. We're not paying. The N.B. case is different in that it is directed against Harris & Co...Premier Higgs has the biggest challenge of his career and for N.B. Will he sit it out similar to Premier King in PEI? Stay tuned. N.B. Teachers can ill-afford to take a backseat thinking that my summer vacation is mine to do as I please. Not so this year. The first casualty will be N.B. School Boards leaving teachers exposed (union powers stripped as well). It happened in N.S. in 2017 after my constitutional challenge there.

 

MESSAGE:

1) 'Mr. Callow was always willing to help those who were willing to help themselves' student testimonial. SEE AFTERMATH for complete letter.

2) I am not hearing from Premier Higgs...is there too much 'Irving' background in him? Nor am I hearing back from individuals reading this Newsletter. Anonymity is guaranteed as reflected by the judicial exposure of Thomas j. in AB in the last Newsletter... 'Sure, use the article but keep my name out of it'

3) At this time, I am planning to go it alone requesting disclosure unless there is a groundswell of support from NB denizens. That will not help N.B. with the carbon tax challenge.

4) Keep in mind that SK had a winning argument but was doomed to lose as the court makes its money with Appeals. The Feds (both Tories & Liberals) win by running a gov't. by fiat. The Liberals currently want the 20% fee attached to finance their gov't. The Premiers and the provinces are being sacrificed on the altar of this devious scheme.

5) It may very well be that even with my assistance, the Provinces will lose the constitutional battle. The point is, will they go down fighting as best they can or will they just hand the Feds a fait accompli? The choice is yours N.B. Act now, there is no later.

 

MESSAGE: (web: 2019 JUNE)

1) Addendum: Mr. Callow does not help those (professional teachers and legal profession) whom do not want to be helped. Quote: In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

2) Similar to PEI Premier King plus Green Party Opposition, NB Premier Higgs cannot be helped. Those provinces and its inhabitants will suffer accordingly under the Carbon Tax challenge. If they had filed intervenor status, they could have made a 'dry run' in preparation for the Feds. I will still run a constitutional question although it will be limited to my case.

3) MB Premier Pallister must decide to either 'fish or cut' bait as the long overdue response from MB courts and his office is due by June 18-2019. MB includes both Employer & Union while PEI includes only the Union& N.B. includes only a civil fraud action against Harris & Co.

Disclosure is at the heart of all actions.

POST IN STAFFROOM - e-mail colleagues

JUNE 17-2019

NEW BRUNSWICK/PEI/MB TEACHERS - June 17-2019

NEW BRUNSWICK TEACHERS - June 07-2019

BY: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK

(34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

(from JUNE 01 Newsletter)

C) Real reason that the courts keep fumbling the Employee's Case? What if I won and the Employer says, sorry, we have told the courts over and over that we do not recognize court oversight of imposed legislation. We're not paying. The N.B. case is different in that it is directed against Harris & Co...Premier Higgs has the biggest challenge of his career and for N.B. Will he sit it out similar to Premier King in PEI? Stay tuned. N.B. Teachers can ill-afford to take a backseat thinking that my summer vacation is mine to do as I please. Not so this year. The first casualty will be N.B. School Boards leaving teachers exposed (union powers stripped as well). It happened in N.S. in 2017 after my constitutional challenge there.

MESSAGE:

3) At this time, I am planning to go it alone requesting disclosure unless there is a groundswell of support from NB denizens. That will not help N.B. with the carbon tax challenge.

4) Keep in mind that SK had a winning argument but was doomed to lose as the court makes its money with Appeals. The Feds (both Tories & Liberals) win by running a gov't. by fiat. The Liberals currently want the 20% fee attached to finance their gov't. The Premiers and the provinces are being sacrificed on the altar of this devious scheme.

MESSAGE: (web: 2019 JUNE)

2) Similar to PEI Premier King plus Green Party Opposition, NB Premier Higgs cannot be helped. Those provinces and its inhabitants will suffer accordingly under the Carbon Tax challenge. If they had filed intervener status, they could have made a 'dry run' in preparation for the Feds. I will still run a constitutional question although it will be limited to my case.

 

3) MB Premier Pallister ...the long overdue response from MB courts and his office.... MB includes both Employer & Union while PEI includes only the Union& N.B. includes only a civil fraud action against Harris & Co.Disclosure is at the heart of all actions.

 

MESSAGE: JUNE 17-2019

 

TO: Three Premiers: A) NB Blaine Higgs††††† f. 506-453-7407

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††† B) PEI Dennis King††††† f. 902-368-4416

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††† C) MB Brian Pallister f. 204-949-1484

 

Actions are in the process of being filed in the above 3 provinces.

SEE employeescasecanada.ca2019 JUNE sub-headings for each province above.

POST IN STAFFROOM - e-mail colleagues

 

JUNE 27-2019

CANADA'S 'LEGAL EBOLA CASE', VAdm. Mark Norman

 

 

1) So Vice Admiral Mark Norman's criminal case was 'bought off' by the gov't. and courts. It is as though controversial Privy Council clerk, Michael Wernick, had never been forced into retirement. The point is that a price tag must be placed on civil matters (such as the Employee's Case: employeescasecanada.ca) but doing so in such a blatant and secret manner in a criminal case is tantamount to the 'interference of justice' under the law in a notable way. It's a legal 'ebola' disease in which the zeitgeist is seen to jump the civil-criminal divide.

2) Significance of the above? In this land of 'law and disorder', the charge against Huawei's Meng makes no sense. It would appear that the bribe offered by the Chinese, if indeed one were made under the above scenario, was not high enough.

3) Much of the blame must be laid at the hands of the media as this legal scam was set up even before the court entered a false 'stay of proceedings' before disclosure was ever produced. Marie Heinen, Norman's lawyer, made into a hero by the myopic media, was a part of that arrangement.

4) Comparing this buy-off with the earlier terrorist buy-offs by some in the media, misses the point. The latter was due to international influences involving the RCMP and CSIS. Norman's case was entirely national with the terms of settlement kept quiet from the taxpayer. Why buy a Canadian newspaper under these circumstances of a 'last requiem'?

5) The law is being bandied about in other respects. Premier Ford also abused the term 'stay of proceedings' to force through a reduction of Toronto Council numbers during an election. Premier Legault uses the 'notwithstanding clause' with gay abandon provoking the QC teachers to 'take a year to study proposals'...in short, ignore the law as one reaction. In AB where the Employee's Case is involved, I am being inveigled to join a hush hush civil class action against named judges for 'kiting' the law. Perhaps there is money to be made in this civil matter (paid by taxpayers, of course); but I refused to join as the proper charge is one of criminal activity on the part of those judges.

6) Over 50 judges have kept the Employee's Case from becoming a criminal matter which would happen if disclosure was forced on the Employer (and Union in this sweetheart deal). As matters stand, the Employer illicitly refuses compensation in this 34 year unresolved legal matter under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 (1985) without a court finding in which they have taken the position that court findings (i.e. quashing the arbitration) have no effect over imposed legislation which they ignore in any event. That is how Canada's legal system collapsed in 2004 with the second inconsequential trip to the Supreme Court of Canada ('ultimate remedy').

 

POST IN STAFFROOM - e-mail colleagues