JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

MAY-2019

 

May 01-2019 - 6 pages - see SUB-HEADING: PREMIER PALLISTER

 

TO: Brian Pallister Premier MB               FROM: Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff

450 Broadway Ave.                                   1285 Cahill Dr. #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8                             t/f: (613) 521-1739

t.(204)945-3714  f.(204)949-1484      e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

e-mail: info@brianpallister.com            web: employeescasecanada.ca  2019 RECENT 5

 

MAY 03-2019                     

REFERENCE: employeescasecanada.ca  MAY-2019

 

RALPH GOODALE - MP REGINA

HE WON! HE WON!

The constitutional battle over imposed legislation (Carbon Tax)

 

PREMIER SCOTT MOE

(SLOW MOE / HAPLESS MOE / HAYSEED MOE)

He apparently has never heard of the term 'fifth column'

 

HE LOST! HE LOST! .... everything....

and with it the future of Canada as well as SK

Will Regina voters 'vote with their feet come October?'

 

May 04-2019 (appears on employeescasecanada.ca  MAY-2019)

 

TO: Premier Moe  via fax: SK: 306-787-0885  cc Saskatoon Court:f. 306-975-4818  1 Page

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

              1285 Cahill Drive E #2001  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7  t./f. 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Information already provided to you illustrates the conduct of a conspiracy in the above Court under the auspices of Justice Konkin whom I ask to recuse himself from this case.

2) The appropriate authorities have been notified to investigate Konkin j. on this level along with the B.C. legal firm of Harris & Co. Indeed, if the Law Society had taken incisive action against this legal outfit in an earlier court case in Regina in 2016, I doubt very much that they would have been permitted back in the province. I have delayed any court hearing in this matter as being legitimate until I have received those respective oversight Reports.

3) The appropriate course of action for Premier Moe is to suspend Konkin j. until the oversight Reports are in. Then he should resign himself as he was kept fully informed of events in Saskatoon and yet still permitted the courts to run 'a job' over him; much like the 'carbon tax'.

4) Konkin j. lied directly to me in an 'ad hoc' teleconferencing hearing on April 25-2019 when I asked him whether any Defendant material in the court was addressed directly to the above Saskatoon hearing. He responded in the affirmative and ordered Harris & Co. which had not filed an appearance notice, to forward the documents to me for a response by May 14 with a renewed hearing date of May 26-2019.

5) The 500 page document was from another province with the only direction to Saskatoon being a one page imbecilic letter from Harris & Co. addressed to me without any reference to the Saskatoon Court. It appears that he received a last minute phone call from the courts to hustle down there for the purpose.

6) There never was any need to attend any court meeting by this plaintiff as my case is completely presented with disclosure being the end result of this prolonged 34 year labour matter where no compensation has been paid in defiance of many statutes. My presence was designed to offset the stunt of B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (SEE web 2018 HINCKSON cj FRAUD) of 'running a court within a court' where he took an advocacy role for the absent Defendants in a solely written Decision.

7) As matters now stand, I will not be attending any court hearing in Saskatoon held for the purpose  as I have nothing to add to my factum. The non-attendance of the Defendants (no forms filed) merely forces the court to accept my assertion as fact; namely, that a conspiracy (sweetheart deal) exists between the Employer and Union in this case designed to deprive this writer of his livelihood. The current outside settlement is for a non-negotiable $20 million.

 

Yours truly

 

Roger Callow Plaintiff  QGB 52 of 2019 Saskatoon

 

cc Governor General Payette, the 'respected' part of government in Canada

 

May 08-2019                                 POST IN STAFFROOM

TO: Peter Bevan-Baker - Opposition Leader PEI  by e-mail: psbevanbaker@assembly. t. 902-620-3977

'IS BEVAN - BAKER JUST ANOTHER 'SLOW MOE'(SK)?

FROM: Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff  e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

              Ottawa K1V 9A7                                             web: employeescasecanada.ca  MAY 2019 PEI

 

MESSAGE:                             PLACARD: POGO / WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY & HE IS THE SK JUDICIARY

1) Does the tiny population of PEI have a million dollars to appeal a Carbon Tax after they lose in order for their Premier to 'save face' similar to SK?

2) I told Moe directly what would happen with the 'fifth column' operating in his judiciary with a similar situation in PEI looming considering earlier court experience in PEI under the previous Premier.

3) In short, Moe launched the wrong argument. What he permitted the court to do was run an end-game around Parliament with the courts as back-up so that they have been permitted to design the Federal election topic between the Liberal and Tory Parties which both political parties desire. Voting 'with your feet' never looked better under these circumstances.

4) Moe also turned a blind eye to my request for Special Counsel to include the constitutional question as the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) was used in my senior teacher lay-off in 1985. The Employer was ordered back to arbitration after the court quashed the arbitration. The BILL stated that BILL 35 'was in addition to' the Schools Act and did not displace any portion thereto.

5) But that is not what the Employer said before over 50 'compliant' judges in this unresolved legal matter in which they maintain that they do not recognize court oversight. That now is the future for SK in the imposed carbon tax.

6) What Moe failed to do and which I have challenged Bevan-Baker of the Opposition PEI Green Party is to raise this issue for special counsel in the Legislature as a means of challenging a 'run-away' Justice System.

7) With School Boards being eliminated reducing Union powers, I am now turning to students across Canada to create: SCHOOL STUDENTS AGAINST IMPOSED LEGISLATION as a means of stopping this gov't. juggernaut and filling the looming void for students, staff and parents.

 

MAY 09-2019

STUDENTS AGAINST IMPOSED GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION e.g. Carbon Tax

                Reference:  employeescasecanada.ca    rcallow770@gmail.com

 

1) If you have received this letter via your Student Council, then you are one of the few in each Canadian province to receive such. You can act as an individual by contacting other Student Councils in High Schools in your Province to organize on the above basis. Indeed, you may provide your own e-mail which will be kept on a special section entitled STUDENT REGISTRY so that you may contact other like-minded students in your Province. Once a Provincial Student website is completed; my role ends and your communication should be with other provinces.

 

2) How often have your heard the  phrase...but nothing is ever done! In brief, the enemy is passiveness in which Canadians appear to excel. Your role is to become an activist.

 

3) It works like this: 90% of the time, doing nothing appears to be the best answer. So what does one do with the other 10% when they have not built up the skills to meet challenges? Invariably, they do nothing leading to 100% passivity. By meeting challenges as they occur, mistakes will be made but that is how one learns. Just don't repeat the same mistake.

 

4) Currently schools have been caught off-guard with the eradication of School Boards which also curbs Union protection. It is within that void that High School Students would act by keeping in touch with other High School Student bodies in other Provinces for sharing advice.

 

Methodology

5) Your forum is the streets, a growing phenomenon in the world, not cliché-ridden politicians and political parties. The target is the government. As a veteran protester in Ottawa for the past 14 years (possibly the longest in Canada), I have learned much about public protesting:

a) make police your friend i.e. approach them first and ask how to obey by-laws. I have never had a problem using that approach. Do not confront them. Talk about matters afterwards.

b) Hold your meetings at school lunch hours and do not infringe on the school programs. If you wish to display Placards; do so on the other side of the street from the school.

c) Liaise with other groups such as parents, teachers, administrators, MADD, etc. but you control the agenda as you are an independent body. Be wary of financial contributions.

d) There are many topics for you. i.e. safety-sports; winter conditions. Suicide is amazingly high in Canada. Do not play psychiatrist. Do work with the suggestions from a local psychiatrist.

e) Stress a substance abuse free approach. For example, report drug dealers on the police tip line. Do not use names e.g. Refer to the Principal as The Administration. Do not name, for example, pedophilia teachers but find ways to get them out of the system such as the Ontario College of Teachers did starting in 1990 as the Unions did nothing around North America.

f) Getting teachers to sponsor school dances can be facilitated by telling the sponsoring teacher that if they see a problem, come to your organization and you will act on the spot.

 

6) The challenge is there and it is for you to see it and take action. I do not advocate violence nor have I used it myself. Even in the community your help can be used i.e. to erase graffitti.

 

Get In Touch - looking forward to hearing from you. Roger Callow

 

May 20-2019                                  POST IN STAFFROOM

                                     

TO: Peter Bevan-Baker - Opposition Leader PEI  e-mail: psbevanbaker@assembly.pe.ca

                                                                                          t. 902-620-3977  f.902-368-5175

Sent by fax: 1 page 

 

FROM: Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff  e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

              Ottawa K1V 9A7

               web: employeescasecanada.ca  MAY 2019 PEI (GREEN PARTY)

 

MESSAGE:

1) I can see a day approaching when Peter Bevan-Baker will be the most hated politician in PE

2) The current determination date (or coffin nail if you prefer) is MAY 31-2019 for on that date, I end my communication with the Green Party Opposition of PEI as Peter has not seen fit to contact me. The shut-down is to be in the same fashion that I closed down on the Canadian Justice System and allied anti-individual media at the end of 2018. Green Party fortunes across Canada will become dust under this test case. PE individuals going to court can expect to be cannibalized under their own court system as one consequence; their unions being useless.

3) Both this case and the Vice Admiral Mark Norman case have one thing in common - denied disclosure which is the bedrock of habeas corpus and therefore all law. Other than the civil-criminal split in the above two cases, the major difference is that PE inhabitants have been kept apprised of Bevan-Baker's silence and the ramifications thereto...and done nothing to change his mind in this pre-emptive approach. Hence their hatred will have a reflexive aspect to it. As with other provinces, I have other options not available to individual provinces.

4) Much the same happened in SK where the Premier was pole-axed with the Carbon Tax findings which I correctly prognosticated to him. Now SK is saddled with a multi-million SCofC  Appeal Bill (it is the business of the courts to make business for themselves) which they can ill-afford; PE even less so under similar conditions. Whether PE agrees or not, the SK experience can be expected to be visited on them with their Carbon Tax challenge as they have the wrong argument as well... as the courts well know.

5) The clock is ticking but is PE listening? MAY 31-2019 will tell.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff

 

MAY 17-2019    

 6th FLOOR / THE LAW COURTS BUILDING / 1A SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL SQUARE                                               

                                                                              EDMONTON  ALBERTA   CANADA, T5J 0R2

           H. MANWEILLER                                                                                                          

           EXECUTIVE  COUNSEL                           

           TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE                          

 

                               COURT OF  QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA 

May 15,2019 2019  Received May 17-2019

                                                                                CONFIDENTIAL

Roger   Callow

VIA Email:  rcallow770@gmail.com

Dear Roger Callow:

Re:   Callow v. Board   of School Trustees   et. al. - Action No. 1903 06964

 

I am writing in response to your letter directed to the Judicial Council of Alberta on April 16 regarding Justice Thomas'  decision in the  above noted action. Your letter was referred to the Chief  Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on April 25, 2019 because   Justice Thomas  is a federally appointed member of the Court of Queen's  Bench. In your letter you ask that Justice Thomas  be suspended "until this matter is sorted out."

 

It appears that you disagree with Justice Thomas' decision. As  such, the appropriate course of action is to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to file an appeal.

 

Please  note, it is inappropriate to communicate with the Court to seek assistance on an action outside of Court proceedings  without notice to Counsel/the other party. (Please see the Court's policy in this regard, available online at: https://albertacourts.ca/qb/resources/media). The reason  for this is rooted in fairness: it would be unfair for one party to attempt to influence the Court  to intervene on their behalf without the knowledge of Counsel/the other party, or the opportunity for the other party to respond. As such, I have copied Counsel for the intended party opposite with this response.

Yours  truly,  (N. Manweiller) signed

cc.     Geoffrey J. Litherland, Harris & Company

 

RESPONSE: (Are you listening, Premier Kenney ?)

1) I am not the least bit interested in the Edmonton Queen's Bench Court reaction as their measure was taken in 2016 under Premier Notley...tried and found wanting. SEE web 2016 ALBERTA (June).

2) So what was I testing? The joint premiership of Notley/Kenney during the take-over period. The above lame action was taken under Kenney's Premiership and is a harbinger of what is to come with his challenge to the imposed Carbon Tax which he is bound to lose with arguments propelled to date. (SEE web: employeescasecanada.ca 2019 PEI )The imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) shows what happens afterwards. For example, the Employer here refuses to recognize court oversight even after the court rejected that argument in 1986. That is alright with over 50 judges plus, now, Thomas j. of Edmonton Queen's Bench in this civil fraud (only the Crown and police may lay criminal fraud charges which, if disclosure had been called for, would most assuredly be the situation.)

3) The stunt pulled here parallels QC where a Chief Justice wrote the lower court judgment without any reference to the sitting judge in June of 2015. That's fraud in any man's book. The QC Appeal Court rejected my Appeal as not being complete in terms of forms; much the same thing as in AB. However, Lavery de Billy for the Employer made private overtures to the Bench to accept the action 'in form' whatever the hell that means, to reject my Appeal. The SCofC in 2016 rejected to hear my Appeal on those grounds of malfeasance. And whom was one of the judges on that panel? Why none other than incumbent Chief Justice Richard Wagner! He also sat on the SCofC Appeal in 2016 - much to my vehement objection - over the SK Appeal.

4) Now I am in receipt of two 'garbage' so-called decisions from Thomas j.; one a 13 page and a second, a 6 page 'dissertation'. What's wrong with it other than asking 'how many forests were cut down and judicial resources wasted'? Similar to QC, I was rejected by the Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench which places an end to my submission until I re-enter with the correct forms which is not going to happen as intended unless AB Premier  Kenney arranges for Special Counsel to deal with the imposed legislation aspect of the Carbon Tax so vital to AB as well as my own cause.

5) But that is not what happened. Thomas j. usurped the system much like QC in which he assigned his own docket number which is shown above and continued to pre-judge this case without a proper court hearing. That's why he should be fired. If he had called for disclosure, I submit his action may have had some validity; but he didn't so hence we are left in the dark as to why this civil fraud action was quashed by him in the first place = cover-up.

6) If this is what Jason Kenney calls justice; just wait until those carbon tax dudes get a hold of him.

 

ADDENDUM

7) A couple of points from this Queen's Bench letter are worth analyzing as to its cupidity:

a) As I suspected, Thomas j. was originally a federal court appointee paralleling the 'Bobbsey twins' in ON, MacKenzie and Scott, making the Canadian Council of Judges the referral body concerned. Even Wagner cj has been critical of this body recently. They never respond but I will send a copy of this letter to them.

b) '...in your letter you ask that Justice Thomas be suspended "until this matter is sorted out"

R.(esponse) You got that right in one.

c) 'It appears that you disagree with Justice Thomas' decision . As such, the appropriate course of action is to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to file an appeal.'

R. If 'running a court within a court' constitutes a 'decision' then yes I disagree, with the answer in b) being the appropriate action

d) 'Please note, it is inappropriate to communicate with the court to seek assistance on an action outside of Court proceedings without notice to Counsel/the other party. The reason for this is rooted in fairness....As such, I have copied Counsel for the intended (my underlining RC) party opposite with this response. (Vancouver's Harris & Co.)

R. The employer does it as a matter of course with private voir dires with the courts and I have caught them numerous times doing so. It is this kind of editorializing which makes this a bad corporate letter. In ON, the court merely stated the significance of the Canadian Council of Judges in referring complaints regarding provincial judges originally appointed by the Federal court. Why would you send a copy to a fictional 'intended' party which does not file a Notice of Reply? What kind of background skulduggery are you personally practicing?

 

 Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow  ('potential' Plaintiff)

cc Canadian Council of Judges

Premier Kenney

 

May 25,2019

 

TO: Harris & Co.                                                                 FROM: Roger Callow self-represented

cc(the Board of School Trustees West Van., B.C.)                  1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

ATTN: DO NOT GIVE TO G. Litherland esq.                             Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

14th Flr. 550 Burrard St.                                                            

Vancouver, B.C. V6C2B5

tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632

        

sent 1 page by fax plus 2 page encl. SK Premier Moe QGB 52 of 2019 (Saskatoon)

 

REFERENCE: Charge of civil fraud for $20 million against HARRIS & CO.

MESSAGE:

1) If it had not been for the 'bait and switch' judicial action in Thursday's Saskatoon trial, Litherland esq. could very easily have ended up in jail if forced to answer questions which the presiding Justice obviated at every turn. Indeed, if the SK Legal Society had conducted an examination of Harris & Co.'s presentation in 2016 as I requested at that time, I doubt that Harris & Co. would have been accepted in any SK court of law.

2) As it was, Litherland esq. could easily have won the 'sloppiest presentation by a lawyer award' by filing a 500 word factum on an ad hoc basis in the first SK hearing on April 25. No forms were filed and there was nothing to connect the material with the SK courts as it was borrowed from another venue. A central question which the second judge obviated related as to whether any interests from the court had contacted Laughton in a court conspiracy which has been directed to the SK Judicial Council. If not, then by all means, he should send me his 'bill of costs' awarded by the court in an oral decision; not a written Decision as I requested.

3) Such information as the above can be included in the projected civil fraud suit against Harris & Co.; possibly in New Brunswick where this case has not been entertained to date. There is no time limitations on fraud. The action would include referencing Lavery de Billy of QC and Hicks,Morley et al of ON as their cases were built on material supplied by Harris & Co.

4) Why, it needst be asked, and not excusing the courts in this regard, should the taxpayers at large be held accountable for a judicial fraud perpetuated by a legal Company over a 34 year period in an unresolved B.C. Labour Case where no compensation has been paid?

5) Of course, Harris & Co. cannot be expected to defend itself. Of course there is no legal outfit hungry enough and stupid enough to represent them no doubt explaining their presence in SK in the first place.

6) Of course the fraud case cannot proceed without disclosure which Harris & Co. have failed to turn over to this Plaintiff in 34 years.

7) My suggestion is that Harris & Co. turn that disclosure over to me now as 'putting a flea in Litherland's ear and the case in his back pocket and sending him on his way' does not deal with earlier Harris & Co. lawyers associated with this case.

8) Please respond soonest as I am becoming restless. Are you listening, Governor General Payette?

 

Yours truly,

(Roger Callow)

 

2-page enclosure

May 23-2019 (employeescasecanada.ca )

 

TO: Premier Moe  via fax: SK: 306-787-0885  2 Pages

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

              1285 Cahill Drive E #2001  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7 

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 diminishing  the 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 the  Employer 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

 

MAY 26-2019

5/25/2019                                                        Gmail  - pipelines

 message

 

 Roger Callow      <rcallow770@gmail.com>                                                 25 May  2019 at 17:51

 To:  blilley@postmedia.com

 

 MESSAGE:

    1) It is almost as if there were two Brian Lillies; one with insight and the other, such as the above article, missing on the dynamics of the case.

    2) I have experienced B.C. Justice Newberry on two B.C. Appeal Courts. She  never asked a question  which is a bad sign but then, why bother when the judgment is already prewritten.

    3) In 2003, Justice Southin (the lead judge from the original 1986 Decision), and Newberry - both having sat before should have recused themselves.  At any rate, I did not get my disclosure which would have been extremely  embarrassing to Southin  whom covered  up a massive  fraud in 1986. The third judge being blooded for the first time such as any pimp does to a prostitute, was so inopportune to ask an intelligent legal question. Southin dropped everything and took her out back  no doubt explaining the facts of Appeal Court life to her. She returned and shut her mouth and signed a unanimous decision against  me.

    4) Newberry's name came up in the press from time to time associated with 'aberrant' Decisions. In brief, she does as she is told.

    5) In the above case, B.C. was pulling the same stunt as the Federal gov't. (Carbon Tax) with imposed legislation. Her message is that only the Feds have access to imposed legislation.

    6) SEE employeeescasecanada.ca  as to how all Premiers are being 'hung out on the line to dry' at great expense to their  province and personal  reputations with the Carbon Tax. SK Moe was the first up to bat with Ford no doubt to follow. Both Trudeau  and Scheer  are quite happy with  the current legal answers on imposed legislation. That's why I don't vote.

 

    Outlaw

 

MAY 26-2019

The Walls Are Closing In on the 'Deep State'

Epoch Times May 23-29 p. A3

 

The American 'Deep State'

     The "deep state" is a colloquialism for an unofficial group of people - an entrenched bureaucracy - within a combination of various government agencies who operate outside the law, pushing their own agenda for domestic and foreign policy. While we've only heard the term recently, in the past, the names of rogue actors within the government have included "the cabal", "the octopus", and "the shadow government".

     Normally thought to be an idea promoted by conspiracy theorists, the notion that a group of rogue actors is operating within the U.S. government now seems to be more truth than fiction, with the revelation that multiple people within the Obama FBI, CIA,DOI, and State Department appear to have tried to sabotage the Trump administration.

     ...Very soon, the public will learn the depths of any corruption that may have occurred. And, unlike in the past, our current attorney general is "serious about cleaning house", Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Fox News.

    

May 30-2019

 

TO: Saskatoon Court Chief Justice Popescu :f. 306-975-4818  Sent by fax 1 Page

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

              employeescasecanada.ca  2019 MAY this date

MESSAGE:

1) I remember you from Regina courts in 2016...and not too fondly. That case wound up at the Supreme Court of Canada level: SEE web: 2016  SCofC  26993. After 34 years and over 50 judges, I still do not have my disclosure in this unresolved labour issue where no compensation has been paid under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 (1985). The outcome of this case is all-important in the Appeal of the Carbon Tax by Premier Moe. Perhaps you should discuss the matter with him as he obviously didn't listen to me.

2) The above case was first heard on April 25-2019 in a conspiracy involving different factions of the court which was forwarded to the SK Judicial Council (As a generalization, oversight bodies never respond in this case).

3) What I require from you is whether Konkin j. was initially appointed as a Federal Judge (Canadian Council of Judges oversight as opposed to Provincial oversight). Further, the internet is strangely quiet on background information on Konkin j. What is his alma mater?...a U.S. diploma mill?

4) As to the case proper, all three litigants are unable to get legal representation as no legal outfit is hungry or stupid enough to get entangled in this affair. The tacit agreement I had with the Defendants was that if no-one appeared for the Defendant Employer & Union; the onus would be on the courts to act unilaterally; an agreement which held in B.C. and AB.

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.

6) As one consequence of the appearance of Harris & Co., is for me to follow through with my earlier threat to them to sue directly should they appear in court. I am now doing so (outside of SK)

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. 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 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.

 

Yours truly (Roger Callow)  Plaintiff